Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cane Toad

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cane Toad[edit]

I found this article in a decent state, though it was missing quite a bit of info. So, I have been working on it for the last couple weeks, and I think it is good enough for FA now (though, undobtably someone will find something here :)). It has been through peer review, here, which was quite succesful, as it has improved greatly. --liquidGhoul 05:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment No external links section and too many red links. — Wackymacs 07:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowhere is it stated that the links should be blue, and that there should be an external links section. It is very well referenced, and that should be enough if someone wants some extra information. External links are usually the residue of someone not referencing properly, and they can cause problems with spam. Also, a featured article shouldn't require external links, as ideally, all the information is within the article. --liquidGhoul 08:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that is why it was a comment and not an objection or support :-) I was merely giving you a suggestion for improving the article. — Wackymacs 15:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, rightio. I disagree with the External Links, but I have improved slightly on the red links. Many of them have been fixed. Thanks --liquidGhoul 15:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have no problems with it, a very nice article. Froggydarb 09:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very nice article and very interesting reading, though I've noticed one thing. I really like the picture of the purse made from the toad, but the ext mentions nothing of it. If you have a picture, there certainly should be some text about it. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will add something to the popular culture section. Thanks --liquidGhoul 22:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support referenced article. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 19:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article is very good. Just one improvement that I can think of, an animated gif image showing the spread of Cane Toads around Australia year by year would look very nice.--Tnarg 12345 21:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll give it a go, but that sounds bloody hard. I think milestones were only ever recorded in the literature. I have a diagram in Australian Frogs a Natural History by Tyler, which has every five years up until 1980, so I will research the expansion after that and see how I go. Thanks --liquidGhoul 22:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice article, good read --K a s h Talk | email 00:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. However, one query: you say that "The Cane Toad has been introduced to many regions of the world", yet the red colouring on the map makes it look like just a few regions. Tony 08:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, will change that to Pacific region. When I originally wrote it, I thought they were more widespread, they are pets in many parts as Europe, but just don't survive in the wild 'cause it is so damn cold. Thanks for all your work on the article Tony. --liquidGhoul 10:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I like this article, it meets the FA requirements. — Wackymacs 11:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support As infamous as they are, the article is a little lacking, but still pretty good. Perhaps it should be a good article until it is made better? --Chris 14:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't make it better unless you give suggestions. What is missing? --liquidGhoul 14:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Object. I agree this article seems lacking, and doesn't appear to be very comprehensive either. 63.23.19.22 16:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind getting object votes as they ultimately improve the article. But, I need to be told what sections are not comprehensive, and what information is missing. I would not have put it through FAC if I thought it was not comprehensive, so when you object to something, it is obviously something that I missed. --liquidGhoul 01:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the last two reviewers: please specify what you find lacking. It is quite dysfunctional to write vague negative statements here. Tony 04:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I like the article, but I have a few minor queries.
  • The call is likened to a "pur". Do you mean purr?
According to Google, "pur" has some diverse meanings, but "purr" isn't one of them. -- Avenue 11:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Puerto Rico, was it the white-grub population or populations? Or is there a reason for switching from plural to singular?
  • It would be populations, as they probably aren't all one continuous population. --liquidGhoul 10:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a morphling? I can guess, but for an uncommon word like this a wikilink or even a short definition would be useful.
  • I have changed all instances of morphling to juvenile. --liquidGhoul 10:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Avenue 10:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong object - it's cane toad, not Cane Toad. All other decent animal articles have the name of the animal in lowercase (e.g. polar bear, tiger shark), and so should this one. Surprised nobody else has picked up on this. The other animals referred to in the article should also be in lower case, also (unless they have a proper noun in their name, but none of these do). And there's nowhere near enough on the problems the cane toad has caused in Australia. Proto||type 10:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Objection withdrawn (see comment below) Proto||type 10:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody has "picked up on it", because it is not a problem. Read these guidelines. Following are a list of featured articles which use capital letters for species common names: Blue Whale, Gray Wolf, Humpback Whale, Island Fox, Marginated Tortoise, Platypus, Short-beaked Echidna, Sperm Whale, Tasmanian Devil, White's Tree Frog, Fauna of Australia, and I am sure there are more. Neither Polar Bear or Tiger Shark are featured. Secondly, I am really getting sick of people giving vague reasons for objections. What is missing in the introduction to Australia section? --liquidGhoul 10:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then those articles are all also wrong (except White's tree frog, as White is a proper noun in this context - it's someone's name). Thank you for pointing these out to me - I'll fix them. And there is no mention of this in the guidelines you mention. That discusses the use of capitals for scientific names (such as Homo sapiens or Canis canis), not for common names (such as 'cow' or 'dog'). And there's nothing missing in the introduction. The section itself is too short. I know for a fact there is lots of information and discussion on this subject, which is of huge relevance to the Austalian farming industry. Proto||type 14:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what you (Proto) are talking about, even if you do dislike the use of capitals in common names, why would you go and "Strongly Object" an article that's only fault (in your opinion) is because common names are capitalised? If you "Strongly Object" to a few capitlisations you don't like, then I wouldn't want to see your opinion on an article that has a bad layout or no references to support the articles info, etc. Froggydarb 11:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a strong objection because I (Proto) in no way could ever lend my support to an article with such a basic error. Something more complex and more esoteric is harder to fix, and so I wouldn't object as strongly. Proto||type 14:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't an error! In fact, it is so much not an error, that every bird species' official common name is capitalised and, many extremely reputable publications use capitalised common names for species. I personally prefer capitals, but I would never oppose a featured article candidate because it doesn't use capitalisation for common names. It is absurd. --liquidGhoul 14:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with froggydarb and liquidGhoul. Every frog field guide that I have calls the Cane Toad "Cane Toad" as well as every other frog, their common names are all capitalised. Why shouldn't we follow suit with books that a good deal of the information in the article comes from. Even if you (Proto) disagree with this form of naming I really don't see it justifying a strong oppose.--Tnarg 12345 22:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not just every frog field guide, but every other animal book that I have seen capitalise the common names. Froggydarb 23:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also suggest that you check out these sites: [1], [2], [3] & [4] it appears that they agree with us on capitalisation.--Tnarg 12345 23:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On the 'the section on Australia is too short' argument, you could go down the Rabbits in Australia route, but it seems that that caused a lot of heartache at the time. And do some people really keep cane toads as pets? That just seems totally bizarre to me. Perhaps a mention of cane toad golf/cricket might be good, as well as the recent(ish) shock when an MP suggested making it legal? [5] - Malkinann 01:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rabbits have caused a huge amount more damage than Cane Toads, and hence there is more information on them. The Cane Toads are causing big problems (especially amongst predators), but when you put them up against the problems that foxes, cats and rabbits have caused, it is small. The only thing is, is that it is happening now. All the extinctions by the cats, rabbits and foxes have basically occured, and are therefore not in the media as much. I will add the cricket and golf (and torture mentality) thing to the popular culture section sometime in the next couple days, though it disgusts me, so someone should probably check it for POV once I am done. --liquidGhoul 01:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some politicians are even more stupid than I thought, if a section on Cane Toad golf is added to the article it should say how horribly inhumane it is and that Cane Toads are just as poisonous once dead as they are when they were alive. So leaving dead Cane Toads around after a game of golf is going to be even worse for the enviroment as most predators will take them as easy food.--Tnarg 12345 23:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've withdrawn my objection, as it appears there's a guideline that says capitalising is the correct way to do it. Which makes sense (capitalise "Cane Toad", don't capitalise "toad"), I guess. But platypus should be lower-case. Proto||type 10:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Needs golfing reference as per above. User said it will be added. So Support. Cvene64 20:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cane_Toad&oldid=1136458934"