Talk:Moor frog

Miscellaneous facts
Or what about a "cultural influences" section that includes the Moor Frog game?? PurpleWriter (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that random facts should be avoided, so I moved what facts I could to applicable sections and deleted the rest. Unfortunately the moor frog video game does not fit anywhere, and when I add external links to some sites the links are automatically deleted. I could undo the deletion, but it does not seem wise. Moorfrogger (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Lists of miscellaneous facts should be avoided, in general (See WP:TRIVIA). The facts should probably be incorporated into other parts of the article, where appropriate. (But the fact that there's a game named after this frog is kind of cool, even though it doesn't fit anywhere.) -Qeny (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could link to a website about the MoorFrog game as an External Link, rather than including it as a listed fact? PurpleWriter (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edible Frog which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Help identifying potential moor frog
I took these pictures in Sarek National Park, Sweden. I think they are Moor frog (non-spotted underside, while spots going along the center of the back, similar look as pictures I saw in commons:Category:Rana arvalis), but I am by no mean an expert. Can someone confirm or correct my categorization? --Trougnouf (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Behavioral Ecology 2022
— Assignment last updated by Eurquhart02 (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments
This article is overall very good. I made lots of minor edits to the wording and moved around some sentences. I think that there is a spot where a citation is needed, but I am not sure what source should be cited there. Overall, great work I think the article has been vastly improved by your efforts. ShawnMohammed (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Overall this is a very strong wikipedia page! I think that these additions have added a lot of great information and substance to this page. I made minor grammatical edits throughout the paper and added a few citations where there were none. Great job! Sophieeichler — Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This article was very strong, and one of the few areas it could improve was in clarity. I made only minor changes in to sentences in multiple sections for clarity, including lead and conservation. No new information, just grammatical structure. Section on Distribution in Romania was reorganized. This was done Oct 20. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luiscville (talk • contribs) 20:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Relocated Population Threats into Conservation Section
Great description with the frog's ecology! I removed the "Population Threat's section and added it into the "Conservation" section as a subheading to make the chronology of the reading easier. As an entire work, the description of the frog's diet is thoughtful, though I would consider adding a description on the frog's predators and enemies to contrast the section. ~ Hoonji2022 (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination
changed to "A few members from a population from Karasuk were able to freeze solid to -16℃, thaw, and survive." Elwhoelwu (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Peer edit
This article is phenomenal. Great images and image captions throughout the article. Incredible depth of research. There were some instances of informal languuage (e.g., "The moor frog's genus, Rana, is a little more specific." I split the diet section into a smaller paragraph.

I thought that the taxonomy section was a little bit strange, but am not confident enough in this to change the article. It seems like you do very general explanation of genus and family that aren't necessarily important to a page on a specific species of frog. Frogboi123 (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Overall this page is awesome and has tons of information. I do think that it is missing some citations, specifically in the beginning. I fixed some formatting issues, specifically putting some writing in paragraph formation and rearranging some of the sentences so that the information was presented in a more intuitive order. I also added links throughout the page where I felt they would be beneficial. I eliminated some unnecessary wordiness in order for the writing to be more clear and more direct.Sophieeichler (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Peer Edit
Amazing article! Such thorough information throughout, covering a wide range of topics. Impressive work! I only made a couple of minor grammar edits and shortened/combined a few sentences. There is a citation needed for the "frog of the fields" expression, although a quick comb through the web was fruitless for me. In description, you state the male and female lengths; is this referring to snout-vent length, or something else? In the last paragraph of Distribution and Habitat, a quick explanation of the rewilding plans could prove useful. The only information I found to be more lacking was information about the tadpoles' description and diet. I am unsure of exactly what the rules for citing are, but I think you only have to cite at the end of a chunk of information, as long as there aren't other sources in between. Great job! It was a nice read. AnnieLiu13 (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Peer Edit
Contrary to a comment stated above, I felt as though the taxonomy section was great and provided a nice overview of the origins of the frogs name. I did, however, move it lower in the article since I feel as though other descriptions might be more important. I dd some general edits to sentence structure and divided some paragraphs into shorter ones to help with the flow of the article. I also removed some redundant information. Moreover, I removed some informal language such as the description of their breeding calls. Carolinaalisio (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The taxonomy needs some major work. It should include who described it, when, and any synonyms or subspecies. Additionally, the vast majority of Wikipedia articles on animal species are written with taxonomy at the top, as this is one of the most important aspects, not all the way at the bottom. An anonymous username, not my real name  00:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Peer Edit
I made a couple changes to address the comments from the Good Article review above.

1) "This suggests that post-copulatory competition may be just as important as pre-copulatory competition." --> deleted

2) "...selects for investment in larger eggs at a cost to fecundity, imposes negative effects on reproductive output, and alters the relationship between female phenotype and maternal investment." --> reworded so that it is not exactly copied from original source.

3) "This is also why high habitat pH (i.e. low concentration of protons in a pool) causes egg coat glycans to deprotonate (i.e. give up their protons) which restores the egg coat’s negative charge/attraction to water." --> defining protonation/deprotonation is outside the scope of this article. Got rid of text inside of parenthesis.

4) spell out "International Union for Conservation of Nature" in first mention of IUCN

5) "Acidification, eutrophication, and other forms of water pollution are negatively affecting the aquatic habitats of moor frogs which is exacerbating their already critical condition." --> these frogs are "least concern". They are not in critical condition. Reworded to "negatively affect aquatic habitats of moor frogs". Frogboi123 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)