Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cane toad/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Raul654 03:03, 3 August 2009.

Review commentary

 * Notified:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, LiquidGhoul

I have split out Cane toad (Australia) since it was a large part of the article (and is also deserving of its own article). Having split out such a large amount of content a FAR is probably needed. I had also found a number of other issues that should not have occurred in a FA. There was a lack of punctuation and poor structure, and before I split out the information about cane toads in Australia the article lacked balance. I have corrects some of these issues. On a minor note I created the Cane toads dab page to get rid of the two links and explanations in the hatnote. Makes it look a little nicer! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article gets stubby towards the end. Single sentence sections are not good. Jay32183 (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the split. Many FAs are significantly larger than the two articles combined. I have proposed a remerger of Cane toads in Australia back into Cane toad before this goes on any longer. Discuss at Talk:Cane_toad. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Article size should not have anything to do with FA status. Splitting out Cane toads in Australia is surely a requisite for the ability to retain the FA status. The info I split out gave the article an imbalance toward Australian info - especially with the large "In popular culture" section. It is interesting to note that the new article has already been rated as C Class. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well of course it'd be rated C-class as it was well referenced and comprehensive. My point is that the rest of the article probably needed expanding, not the aussie bit needing contracting. There is also a guideline not to make radical changes to Featured Articles, and also some form of adequate summary should have been left on the article page. I am sad as I have seen many of these daughter pages receive little traffic compared with the mother article, even when the link is very obvious. As the article is now unstable, its Featured status should probably be revoked on the spot. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Aussie info is not contracted - it is simply moved. I suspect that the info about other countries is not likely to be expanded and the Aussies stuff may be of a higher notability (I will expand the summary at cane toad at some stage). I don't think the traffic difference is a valid argument. Cane toads is of interest to a wider sector than cane toads in Australia - and that is another reason to split the article. I was not aware of a FA guideline re splitting but I guess being bold can override a guideline. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion this FAR was a bit premature since the FAR was opened moments after the split was made. Discussion in the article's talk page would be better to avoid redundant discussions. Joelito (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The FA was not justified before the split IMHO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was in overall better shape before the split. You've left the article with stubby, single sentence sections where previously there were fully fleshed out paragraphs in a single section. Although, Joelito's point was that there should have been a discussion about the split on the talk page prior to an FAR. Jay32183 (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Aussie stuff was spread throughout the article and giving it its own article cleaned it up. The stubby section I left can be expanded and I will do it as soon as possible. I saw no need for a discussion on something that looked like it needed doing. It was hardly a case of being overly bold. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Now is not a good time to review this article, given that major changes to the article have been attempted in the last few days, but not completed, and there is a current discussion about the split/merge on the article's talk page. Apart from this, there has been little change to the article over the past year, so I think it's a bit premature to strip it of FA status on the basis that it's unstable. Doing that would set a very bad precedent, in my view. To avoid wasted effort, let's put this review on hold until the talk page discussions and any action resulting from them are complete. -- Avenue (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. I had intended the original as a rhetorical question and hope it keeps FA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the Featured article criteria "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing, presentation and sourcing." Even before I split out the Aussie section the article should not have fitted that description. WP can do much better than what was on offer in the article. Also, article stability is but one of the FA criteria. A few points to justify remove of the FA status (in no particular order):
 * A lengthy hatnote that should have only been one link
 * lack of punctuation
 * Presence of redlinks
 * A lengthy "in popular culture" section all about Australia yet the sections on other countries were very short and generally lacked references.
 * Poor article flow in the "Introductions" section. It should at least have Level 3 headers for individual countries
 * Unsourced statements since April 2008
 * The Notes and References should be one section (I notice that the References header has since been removed. Not all the References are linked to the article text. It should therefore be in a Further reading section. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree on many points in the preceding - there needs to be more detail on the native range in the Distribution section, and the  Poison section is small. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the refs are not linked to inlined refs as they predate a big move to inlining. So are probably relevant to the text. Hopefully, they can be accessed and we can determine which references what and help get the text inlined. I don't think a further reading section will eb required. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist for the following reasons:
 * presence of redlinks
 * references that could be inline rather than listed after the refs section
 * lack of info on the introductions to the different countries
 * Note that I had split out the info pertinent to Australia to the Cane toad (Australia) article. See the discussion at Talk:Cane toad. I had also fixed a number of glaring reasons why the article should not have had a FA status. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am thinking probably Hold for the time being as from the discussion above, there appear to be a few issues left to resolve that have attention from editors that could potentially address them. I agree with that instead of spinning out material, it may have been best to instead expand the other subsections. However, there do appear to be some 1c issues that should be addressed. Cirt (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm currently working through the article to address the referencing and comprehensiveness issues. It should take about a week to see that complete. On the plus side, there are sufficient references available to meet any 1c concerns. - Bilby (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * In the description section, it's unclear to what the length is referring to in the first sentence: the male or female toad.
 * The tadpoles' length mention needs an Imperial conversion.
 * done  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Toadlet size (in mm) needs an Imperial conversion.
 * done  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Snout-vent length needs an Imperial conversion.
 * done  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Eat widely" is unclear ... is that area or the variety of their food?
 * done  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "The cane toad" and "cane toads" are used interchangably throughout the article. I'd suggest picking one style and sticking with it.
 * It adds a bit of variety I guess, but as it isn't the same as using different common nouns or formats, but just a plural/singular is it a big problem?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - I've changed most of the instances of "cane toads' to "the cane toad", as the former suggests more than one type of cane toad, while the latter is clearer. I've left "cane toads" only where the discussion seemed related to individual instances of the cane toad, rather than the species. - Bilby (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a citation needed tag at the end of the predators section.
 * Bilby got rid of the sentence  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you add a citation for the thought that it was introduced to "most Caribbean islands"?
 * done  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In Martinique, what does it mean that the toads were "successful"?
 * done  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a bad idea to start a sentence with a numeral, as in 1884.
 * done  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In Fiji, "the government of" what?
 * done  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How were toads used in human pregnancy tests? It's not mentioned until the New Guinea section, when it's thrown in casually, even though that prompts strong questions.
 * It is explained in the "uses" section at the bottom. It's hard to fit it in the intros part without doubling up  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - I've added a little bit of context to the pregnancy testing reference in the New Guinea section, and extended the material in "Uses" for balance. (I found a really cool source, so it made me happy). - Bilby (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's about it from me. Fix these, and I'll support its keep. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One final thing ... that last sentence of the lede seems a bit awkward. I don't understand the use of "farmers" since other people's pets also are apt to eat the toads, and livestock are herbivorous. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is comprehensiveness as a result of section split. Joelito (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note Moving to FARC since no progress was observed to resolve the split. Joelito (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist multiple citations needed. DrKiernan (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm on them. :) I'm marking missing ones as I go, but given the topic citations won't be a problem. There's sufficient, readily available material to source each statement, although it will take a few more days to be done. - Bilby (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bilby has done a marvellous job on expanding the article, improving the breadth and depth  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not worried about the citation for Chaunus marinus, I can see that this name is used in more modern literature on cane toads. It's the identifications that confuse me. The rococo toad is given an unfamiliar Latin name, surely it should be Bufo paracnemis? I'm inclined to think that Schneider's toad is something else. I think this section is rather confused, and should be removed until something better can be written with verifiable sources. DrKiernan (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - I've removed those sections, as they don't seem core and I've been unable to find any support for them in the literature. - Bilby (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - While I'll probably make a pass to ensure WP:MoS compliance, at this stage I think referencing and expansion should be pretty much done. Every claim has been referenced, and where possible I've double checked any existing references. - Bilby (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Close The single remaining "fact" tag is trivial. DrKiernan (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I had missed that fact tag. That's a tad embarrassing. It should be covered now. - Bilby (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Great job bringing article up to standard. I did a pass for MOS, and I think I got everything, except that the ecology, behavior and life history section needs conversions. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I considered using the convert template, but found it read better if done by hand. - Bilby (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep/Close etc. Great work. Prose might need a little massaging but not a deal-breaker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm onto it. Yes I think the prose could be improved quite a lot.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') paid editing=POV 06:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Alternative text needed for the images. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. And thanks - I didn't realise that the wiki supported alt tags, and I'm really pleased to find out that it does. - Bilby (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hold for the moment. There's still a few things to clear up, but nothing major. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. My comments have been addressed, and with a coterie of editors repairing other comments, I'm confident this article should remain featured. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets FA standards, great job. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment There's one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed. DrKiernan (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, and thank you Bilby. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The prose is mostly OK, but needs attention in quite a few places; I've done a little cleaning up. But I haven't fixed multi-bloopers like this: "... it was introduced to Puerto Rico in the early 20th century in the hope that it would be more effective against a beetle infestation that was ravaging the sugar cane plantations. It was, and following the economic success of the toad in negating the beetles ...". If this FA retained, I think the authors should locate copy-editors who will spruce it up. ... or now?  Tony   (talk)  10:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Did a round of full copyedit  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! '') paid editing=POV 07:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will copyedit more this weekend. Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done some copyediting now - it looks good to me. Awadewit (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.