Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Pseudacris-crucifer-003

Pseudacris-crucifer-003
I believe this sound clip "illustrates article content particularly well, or is so striking to the ear that users will want to read the accompanying article." I hear Spring Peepers in my backyard every season and can say that there is no better way to experience them other by hearing them. This sound clip is a very high quality recording of them. Discuss.


 * Nominate and support.--Russoc4 21:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Being not a sound expert, I can't use the correct terminology, but it sounds like there is some distortion/overloading of the sound at the really high frequency and high volume sections. Also, it seems a little long for what seems like a series of repetative sounds. -- Tewy  02:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer the shortened version, although I still can't say that i support any version of this file, per my reasoning above. -- Tewy  16:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not based on an existing criterion (not yet, anyway), but I do wonder why it's 120 seconds long, when all of the relevant information is contained in the first, say 10–15 seconds. Nothing else happens except a continuity. Support. I still think it's too long at 45 seconds, but I can live with it. Next time, please don't fade out over—what is it, 10 seconds, oh so gradually?—try two seconds. I suggest a fading out after 30 seconds or so. I find the loudest sounds a little jarring on my ears when the level is turn up to discern all of the details; it's as though the recording was made too close to the frog(s). The info page and caption need copy-editing. Who was the recordist? Tony 11:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the recordist, User:mdf claims it both on the image file and on his contribs page. Isn't it clear? I can redo the fadeout, but I'm not sure what can be done about the fact that the sounds are too jarring. Maybe this FSC isnt' salvagable after all... Borisblue 03:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reduced the length to 29 secs, and fixed the fadeout. Borisblue 03:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've cleaned up the information page a bit.--Pharos 00:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I asked the nominator yesterday whether the file duration can be reduced. Tony 02:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've submitted an edited version. File length is cut in half, and fadeout is added at the end. Borisblue 03:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support- but I wouldn't mind if the file length was reduced a little Borisblue 17:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Prefer my version. Borisblue 15:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - prefer the shortened version. Adam Cuerden talk 22:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Copy-editing issue, which is why I still oppose. Here's the text of the info page:


 * "A pond of Spring Peeper's and Wood Frog's -- Presqu'ile Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada


 * Probably a few hundred or so individuals in a pond 50m x 30m near Owen Point in the park. The recording was made about one hour after sunset on 2006 April 16. The peepers are the high "peeps" and the Wood frogs are the low, chattering, tones in the background. For their size, Spring Peeper's are extremely loud; to get an idea, turn your playback up until you can't think anymore...


 * The recording is 1 minute long.


 * Source: Borisblue, orignally from Mdf


 * Date: April 2006

The recording is 58 seconds long on my ogg file. The "date" needs a day to be a date; this is provided in any case in the previous text, from where it should be removed to avoid repetition. "Probably" and "or so" are both uncertainty words, and you should use only one of them. MOS says to insert a space between value and unit ("m"). Use the multiplication sign (click on it beneath the edit box), not an ex. Remove the first two apostrophe's from the title line: these are plain plural's, not possessive's. "An" hour would be smoother than "one" hour. When you say "the peepers are the high peeps", no, the creatures are not the sounds they make; same for the frogs. Use "make" or "sound" as your verb here. Remove the comma after "chattering". There's another errant apostrophe in the paragraphs, and is it "Wood Frogs" or "Wood frogs"—both appear. I'd remove that last clause as a little informal, but that's not a deal-breaker. The rest of the copy-editing is. Tony 02:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've copy-edited both versions according to your suggestions. Borisblue 03:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed to support, but PLEASE remove the apostrophes from "Spring Peeper's and Wood Frog's"; otherwise I'll oppose again. Tony 01:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly a reason to oppose, but I've changed it nonetheless. -- Tewy  05:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 11:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)