Talk:Hoplobatrachus tigerinus/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: User:Casualdejekyll (talk · contribs) 20:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @An anonymous username, not my real name, do you intend to continue with this review? I know that earlier in December you stated that you were going to be inactive for a bit - do you want to drop this review or should I wait for you? casualdejekyll  12:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll get working very soon, and I do fully intend to complete the review. An anonymous username, not my real name  14:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * What is a "nuptial pad"? That's the one 1a thing that stands out to me - some sort of link or something could clear this up. "This was suggested to be caused by food and water quality differences" - Could be changed to "The study suggested" or similar, to avoid the weasel wording? However, it's good beyond those minor nitpicks.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * No copyvio (earwig looks great). This doesn't impede the GA criteria at all, but is there any way to make the citations for IUCN Red List clearer on what section each statement is citing? Similar to what rp does, but with sections instead of pages. (I don't know if this is technically feasible, and in any case it's irrelevant to the GA process.)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I'm surprised at how short the Taxonomy section is. Is that really everything? Seemingly obvious (in my view) omissions - how did it go from "tigerina" to "tigerinus", when and why was it placed in the Hoplobatrachus genus, are there any other alternative names? (If there's really nothing else to add, then it can be passed as-is, but it seems out of place. This could also affect 1b, since it's a very short section.) The rest of the article is good.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: Hold while problems are addressed.
 * , sorry for the holdup, but I've addressed everything now. An anonymous username, not my real name  23:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And now I've held up myself. Now it's my turn to apologize, I'm so sorry this happened. @An anonymous username, not my real name: 1a looks good now.3a is more of a "pass with caveats" - Compare Oriental fire-bellied toad (GA) or Mini scule (FA) - both's taxonomy sections are about twice the length. Not that length is the requirement, but it initally seemed difficult to have the neccesary "broad coverage of the major aspects" in your three sentences. However, the former example was actually written by you, and both of the example frogs have more complicated taxonomies. Bombina orientalis has the subspecies existence/lack thereof, and Mini scule has the confusion with Cophyla. However, I can't think of anything similar that could be used here - those are major aspects, definitely, but it doesn't look like such aspects exist here.  Therefore, I think this should be Passed. Good job, and sorry for the holdup!  casualdejekyll  20:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail: Hold while problems are addressed.
 * , sorry for the holdup, but I've addressed everything now. An anonymous username, not my real name  23:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And now I've held up myself. Now it's my turn to apologize, I'm so sorry this happened. @An anonymous username, not my real name: 1a looks good now.3a is more of a "pass with caveats" - Compare Oriental fire-bellied toad (GA) or Mini scule (FA) - both's taxonomy sections are about twice the length. Not that length is the requirement, but it initally seemed difficult to have the neccesary "broad coverage of the major aspects" in your three sentences. However, the former example was actually written by you, and both of the example frogs have more complicated taxonomies. Bombina orientalis has the subspecies existence/lack thereof, and Mini scule has the confusion with Cophyla. However, I can't think of anything similar that could be used here - those are major aspects, definitely, but it doesn't look like such aspects exist here.  Therefore, I think this should be Passed. Good job, and sorry for the holdup!  casualdejekyll  20:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And now I've held up myself. Now it's my turn to apologize, I'm so sorry this happened. @An anonymous username, not my real name: 1a looks good now.3a is more of a "pass with caveats" - Compare Oriental fire-bellied toad (GA) or Mini scule (FA) - both's taxonomy sections are about twice the length. Not that length is the requirement, but it initally seemed difficult to have the neccesary "broad coverage of the major aspects" in your three sentences. However, the former example was actually written by you, and both of the example frogs have more complicated taxonomies. Bombina orientalis has the subspecies existence/lack thereof, and Mini scule has the confusion with Cophyla. However, I can't think of anything similar that could be used here - those are major aspects, definitely, but it doesn't look like such aspects exist here.  Therefore, I think this should be Passed. Good job, and sorry for the holdup!  casualdejekyll  20:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

3. It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):

Overall: Pass/Fail: Passed