Talk:Oophaga sylvatica

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 4 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AndrewGauthier1. Peer reviewers: Evabraud, Axel sauce, Rmarin8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 5 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Javenemani. Peer reviewers: Jordanviv02, Honorherring.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Behavioral Ecology 2022

 * Overall I thought that this was a good article. There was a lot of good information posted and the language that was used was succinct and matched the expectations of the assignment. I edited a few minor things. First I updated the position of the “Population structure, speciation, and phylogeny” to the top of the page under description. This is because I thought that the original position of the category disrupted the flow of the readings since it would go from description to habitat then abruptly switch to the population structure. So I thought that by moving it upwards it would flow better. I additionally updated the categories for reproduction and life cycle. This is because I thought that because of the relatively small amount of information written in these two categories, they could be combined into a broader category so that it would look better to readers. --Qinan123 (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I thought this page included good references and information. I only had a little problem with the formatting. I moved some things around and made new headers referencing the wikipedia frog outline as I did so. I added a protective coloration and behavior section to include information from the end of the mating section and from the end of the previous first paragraph of the toxins section. The mating was made to be a section of its own opposed to a subsection under the reproduction and life cycle header. I did the same with the parental care subsection, and made it a section separate from reproduction and life cycle. I changed the toxins section header to physiology with digestion and toxins subsections. I moved the 2nd paragraph from the previous toxins section to the diet section. I kept the other paragraphs in the physiology section, but this was hard to divide into digestion and toxin subsections according to paragraphs since there is a little overlap. I just thought that this section needed to be organized because of the large amount of information it presents. I also moved the part about alkaloid toxins in oocytes that was previously in the toxins section to the parental care section.


 * Overall I think this page has developed a lot, and has many references with great information. I only had one suggestion after I moved things around as I mentioned above. Many times throughout the page, research is mentioned and followed up with a fact or consideration that is also made other places in the article. If writers were able to find multiple sources verifying those research facts, like the proportions of the Oophaga sylvatica’s diet, the diet could be stated as a fact instead of something that “researchers found”. If controversial ideas were claimed to be uncertain and found in only particular research, this could be said when one of those ideas comes up in the page. If controversial ideas are defined while undisputed ones are just stated as fact and not research, then it would be more clear which ideas are accepted and which ones are still being argued over. If all of this is uncertain in the field then it can just be left as it is.--Eregwustl (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Overall you can tell this paper has had a more broad and at large study of the particular frog. The paper also has 27 references to back that up. However, after reading the information, you can start to see that many of the headings have very brief and short pieces of information. Some only have a handful of sentences. I think the diversity of the information is very good. The species has a variety of headers on this article and they help encapsulate a wide majority of quality information. However, I think there is a great deal of information to add in each particular category. I think there is loads of information that you can add to this paper. In categories such as habitat, reproduction, proective coloration, and physiology there are paragraphs more to write about that is essential and quality information. I also went in edited for spelling and typing errors. I also did my best improve diction and sentence structure as well as fixing any grammatical errors I saw. I think this article could also benefit with the addition of more images. I think when speaking about aspects of the frog such as its skin alkaloids, an image does in wonders in helping a reader understand. I also found that many areas included pieces of research information, and it seems that the author forgot to include the citation. Some specific instances I noticed were in the digestion section as well as the parental care section there was a lot information that you could tell was from research found in references and although paraphrased it needs to be cited. Yarlagaddas (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

— Assignment last updated by Froggo1324 (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)