Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mini scule/archive1

Mini scule

 * Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

A tiny Malagasy frog that first attracted my attention back when it was described in 2019, and here we are two years later with the article at FAC (pretty much only because of the scientific name). AryKun (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Images are all licensed and sourced properly. CC-BY-4 confirmed. Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 03:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

 * I would merge the two extremely short paragraphs in the Distribution section
 * Done.


 * "the author of the article in which it is described recommend that it be" - I suspect that author (singular) should actually be authors (plural) and I think the verb should be in the past tene
 * Changed.


 * That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - with the caveat that I did the GA review. I think it would be nice with more in-depth reviews, and while the article is rather short, it seems unlikely much more info about the species will become available any time soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Drive-by comment by Wretchskull: "Madagascar: Meet the Mini Frogs of Madagascar - the New Species We've Discovered" is available on the wikipedia library (Gale). Definitely significant. Wretchskull (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've actually read this already (it's the same as here), and it doesn't really provide much information on this species. It rather discusses the amount of diversity present in microhylid frogs and the challenges facing them in countries like Madagascar. Very in general, and nothing that could be used for this article. AryKun (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, I support this FAC. Wretchskull (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Image review from the peanut gallery theleekycauldron
revision review' :D


 * All images are from this link, which is a credible scientific publisher.
 * The entire article is released under Creative Commons 4.0, making the images contained therein (and when i tell you that they definitely are contained therein–oh yeah) freely licensed and ready for use. sorry, Sennecaster! I didn't see your comment, didn't mean to step on your toes
 * Images contain good captions and alt text
 * Some text is MOS:SANDWICHed between text; that'll need to be resolved
 * I don't see any sandwiching?
 * First two lines of the "Distribution and habitat" section?
 * Weird, it isn't sandwiched in my view.
 * I have an issue with the second infobox image (the known range)—I might just be hallucinating, but that pentagon looks kinda brownish to me, more than yellow. Also, I think the pentagon is too small in the image, so it looks like a circle and is hard to spot. Could this be pinpointed with a map template of some kind?
 * It's more of an ochre, but I wanted to go with a color everybody's likely to know. I'll change it if you want: maybe dark yellow or brownish-yellow?
 * I'm more thinking change the whole picture to a built-in map function, since it's hard to spot regardless; does the point in the article come with coordinates of any kind? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, all around 24.7°S, 47.17°E.
 * Could you implement Location map instead? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to do that; also, I'm concerned about it seeming a bit OR, as we're just synth-ing the coords given to show an area. AryKun (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it'd be OR to take given coordinates and plug them in; that just seems like interpreting the sources, unless (-24.7, 47.17) isn't the full thing? anyways, the code would be  (it gives the image to the right) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm still concerned about OR, so I'd like another opinion about this before implementing. AryKun (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should stick to the peer reviewed, published map and imagery as much as we can, we're lucky it's free to begin with. Deducing exact coordinates from a map would be borderline OR I agree. FunkMonk (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the coordinates are given in the article, not just the map? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * All of the images are relevant—however, I think that none of them give an impression of just how tiny the damn thing is. The photo of Mini scule on a human thumb in the same article kinda blew me away, I knew it was small but I didn't think it was that small. i'd strongly suggest using it, even if you have to cut out the top/bottom view images. Or, however you want to make it work is fine by me :)


 * That image is of Mini mum, so I don't think I could cut out a Mini scule image for it.
 * Fair enough.

other things
I was going to do a source review, but I don't feel qualified—so, I'll leave it here for now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 10:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The media attention to the specific name (and that of its counterparts) is kind of pedestrian in the "taxonomy" section, stuck in a paragraph—could it be expanded into its own section/paragraph?
 * The article did have a separate section for this, but it was merged by another editor based on MOS:POPCULT.
 * Interesting—I can see why that was done. I wouldn't have called it "in popular culture", since it's not appearing in creative work or the like, but i'll leave that there for now.

Comments Support from Kavyansh

 * "of microhylid frog endemic to" — MOS:SOB
 * Removed unnecessary link to frog.


 * "It is very small, measuring only 8.4–10.8 mm (0.33–0.43 in)" — do we need to mention that it is very small, when the size itself conveys that?
 * I guess it provides a description, just mentioning the size is a bit dry.


 * "by the herpetologist Mark Scherz and colleagues" — "by his colleagues" would be better
 * Changed to "and his colleagues"


 * "It is part of the family Microhylidae, a widespread family" — repetition of 'family'
 * Removed first "family".


 * "a clade sister to" — MOS:SOB, but feel free ignore if this cannot be avoided
 * Can't really be changed without some awkward wording.


 * "snout–vent length" is used in the lead, but not in the prose.
 * Added in prose.


 * "It has a rectangular body" — When we write biography of a person, the last name of that person is specified at the beginning of each new paragraph instead of using pronouns like "He", "Her". Is the same followed for articles like this as well? If so, should "It" here be replaced by Mini scule?
 * Replaced all start of paragraph "It"'s with "M. scule" or "The species".


 * Is M. mum same as Mini mum? I honestly know nothing about this ...
 * That would would be the same, yeah theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ref#1 is missing "Mathew S. Crowther" as its editor.
 * Added.


 * What makes National Geographic a high quality reliable source?
 * I would guess that Nat Geo is a reliable source since it's a major science magazine publisher? In any case, that refis't absolutely needed and can be replaced if you want. AryKun (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if National Geographic as whole is considered WP:HQRS; the particular source you use in the article is just fine. But, if you could replace with a better source, I'll suggest to go that way. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Replaced with a Down to Earth article written by Scherz. AryKun (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Lastly, if promoted, this would be the second shortest FA (between Miss Meyers and Nico Ditch). Would be exciting to see that happening! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Supporting! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review
Spot-checks not done. All sources seem reliable to me and the formatting is consistent. Granted, I'd ask if there is a better source than this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it's written by one of the authors of the study describing it, so it's probably reliable. But since it was republished, I've replaced that ref with one to the original publisher. AryKun (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Jo-Jo Eumerus Is this a pass for the SR? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, with the caveat that I didn't do any spot-check nor did I check any other criterium. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

(t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)