Talk:Nyctibatrachus sabarimalai/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 22:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I've completed my review. Only a few issues, all of which I think are easily dealt with. Let me know if you have any questions or ping me once you've had a look. Thanks! grungaloo (talk) 22:47, 22 December 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):
 * See comments Issued addressed
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * No copyvio, good use of limited sources. A few comments on how the source was interpreted, see below.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Few sources available so good coverage given what's available.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Meets NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No recent reverts or any evidence of edit warring.
 * 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):
 * Map should be labelled. Label added
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * See comments Pass

Comments

 * Pushpin map needs label.
 * Added.
 * - "robust frog family" sounds odd to me, I like how it was rewritten for N robinmoorei.
 * Done.
 * - "night frog" and "robust frog" again. Change to make it clear they're not adjectives.
 * Done.
 * - according, typo.
 * Fixed.
 * - The sides of the head are
 * Done.
 * - "the discs on the third finger and fourth toe..."
 * Done.
 * - I think saying that each note is 139.9 milliseconds is slightly incorrect since "note" seems to be roughly synonymous with how "pulse" is used in the source. If that's your intent then 139.9 msec refers to the entire call and not a singular note/pulse. You can change it to "which each call being 139.9 msec" and that should fix it.
 * Another comment on this sentence—the overall flow feels a bit off, although I can't exactly figure out what needs to change. I think it's how the clauses are broken up—"each note being 139 msec long and six pulses are given per call"—this almost feels like a run-on sentence even though it's not. Let me know what you think, if I come up with a suggestion I'll let you know.
 * Addressing both the above comments; I've reworded the sentence to make it sound less run-on and use wording closer to that of the source.
 * - Since only a single male has been observed calling in this manner, can we generalize it to say "Males have been observed..."? The way the sentence is written implies this is typical behaviour, which isn't supported by the source. The source doesn't generalize this observation, so I think it would be appropriate to follow suit.
 * Tweaked.
 * , see replies inline above. AryKun (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * All looks good, happy to promote this. Thanks and congrats on another GA! grungaloo (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)