Talk:Phyllomedusa trinitatis

Wiki Education assignment: Behavioral Ecology 2022
— Assignment last updated by CalJS (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Change in leading section and restructure of development and life cycle section
I added some more sentences in the leading section to make it more comprehensive. The development and life cycle contains too much information under the same heading, which can be overwhelming for the readers. Thus, I restructured it by creating two subheadings - Physical development and life cycle. I also italicized all species scientific names in the article.

Peer Review and revision
I think you did a really good job and I like how you have the precise summarization of the active peptides, which means much more than merely the ecological aspect. I added some more information to lengthen the page a little bit. Darreciel (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Sentences I added:

An interesting characteristic of this frog is it has no webbing on the hands and feet. Researchers suggest that the unique toes might be due to both habitats and its predation behavior. A common predator of this frog's tadpole is dragon fly larva. It can produce posionous secretion for predator defense. Yunfeng Ge (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Anisha's comments

I thought that this page was really well done. The information was clearly well researched and I enjoyed the detailed information about the peptide defense and mating. The peptide defense system was super unique to this frog so I though it was a great addition. I edited the for grammar and brevity. I took some information out on the exact semantics of the research study and exact data values to make the explanation more concise and easily readable to an average reader. I also edited the mating section for better grammar and to avoid run on sentences. Anishal311 (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Research limitations section
The research limitations section does not have appropriate tone. I also question if this section is relevant enough to include in the article. Should it be edited or would it be better to remove it? SpookyFrog (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I edited this section to make it a little more concise and clear. I agree with you, though, that it seems a little out of place compared to the rest of the article. Because it only summarizes a single research paper, I think it would ultimately be better a) being absorbed into one of the other sections or b) as a footnote in an article on spatial tracking for wildlife. DuckWrangler97 (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Descriptions and questionable source
Some sentences have a tone which is indecisive, for example: Sentences in the descriptive part use the word "described as" for how the frog looks. Wouldn't it make more sense to only bring up it's appearance? I'm a bit new so correct me if I'm wrong.

Furthermore, the sentence regarding males lack of vocal slits refers to an article by CÉSAR L. BARRIO-AMORÓS (5), however on reading the article I could not find a mention of the males specifically lacking this slit. RoboticBard (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)