Wikipedia:Peer review/Frog/archive1

Frog
It is already a Good Article. We think it has huge FA potential. Our main questions concern the structure of the article, including the use of headings and subheadings. We have also just added a new gallery in an unusual format that we would like your comments on. Any other comments welcome. - Samsara contrib talk 13:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, a few things: A few more notes would be good; I think a wide article about frogs has far more categories. Certainly more than one; I like the gallery, but can I ask you why all of you decided not to use the finction?; perhaps mentioning them as a food delicacy (especially in France!)—Or is there no point, as you already have Wikibooks:Cookbook? Hope this helps. Good article though. KILO-LIMA 20:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The use of the function is still in discussion. None of us really liked the look of it, but apparantly, there is a problem with rendering the current gallery in one of the Firefox versions, so there may be no choice. It does mention frogs as a food delicacy, in the Adult sub-section, but I think that it is more suited for the Frogs in popular culture article. I can think of adding Category:Amphibians, but don't know what else would be suitable. Do you have any suggestions? Thankyou for the help. --liquidGhoul 21:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would definitely put it into Category:Amphibians. What about Category:Prehistoric amphibians? KILO-LIMA 16:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have put it into Category:Amphibians, but I think Category:Prehistoric amphibians is more for things which became extinct during prehistory. Otherwise almost all extant animals would be part of the category. --liquidGhoul 03:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to briefly expand on that, as it may be of interest to others: the problem with using the method is that the gallery can be overlapped by nearby existing images that, depending on what size the browser window is, can be invading the space of the gallery. The gallery is agnostic to this - it makes no attempt to get out of the way, neither so do the other images. This is not just a problem with images, but also with other elements such as taxoboxes. Since the gallery does not adapt to changing screensize at all, it is badly viewable at small window sizes. I hope someone comes up with a better solution to this problem. - Samsara contrib talk 22:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Frog legs are currently mentioned in the life cycle section, the idea being that people are thereby natural enemies of frogs. The article used to have a "human uses" section - do you think this would be a better idea? - Samsara contrib talk 22:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is really good. Great work and definately FA-worthy. I only have two minor suggestions: In the 'Poison' section, you might want to say which two non-poisonous species mimic dart poison frogs' coloration, or at least add a citation for that. Another idea would be to add an audio clip to 'Call', but that's in no way required. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 22:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Names of mimics are added. I think that the audio clip feature is a great idea. I've got a recording of a "Whistling Frog" from Barbados as well as a corresponding picture of a male calling, but am swamped with "real" work at the moment and can't get around to it for a week or so. If anyone else wants to take this up that would be great. Otherwise, look for my addition in about a week.Pstevendactylus 02:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If someone in the Edinburgh, UK, area has a means of transferring audio tape data to a digital format (I guess ogg), then please let me know - I have a frog pond recording from Thailand. - Samsara contrib talk 16:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to let people who are watching this know that it is now a featured article candidate - see its nomination. - Samsara contrib talk 15:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)