Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/White's Tree Frog

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

White's Tree Frog

[edit]

I have created this article, and run it through peer review, and there seems to be no more additions needed. It was improved gretly by the peer review. I think it is a good, comprehensive article and hopefully ready for featured article status. --liquidGhoul 23:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote yet: What kind of "gland" is on its head? In the distribution section, it says they're in northern and eastern Australia, but in the section before it said, I think, that they're only in northwestern Australia. Was that the magnificent that's only there? A bit confusing right along there. Geogre 00:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I'm a sucker for tree frogs, and the writing looks good, comprehensive, and clear. I've done a slight copy edit on a couple of rough spots. Geogre 11:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ribbit. Oh, sorry - crawk. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fantastic article, though I'd recommend a copy-edit! —Hollow Wilerding 01:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very well done AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 04:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Would be nice if you attempt to fix the red links by creating those articles or removing those links. Otherwise looks good! — Wackymacs 12:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem, I will create them in the next couple days. --liquidGhoul 12:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure why people are so opposed to red links. While blue links are usually better than red links, some stubby articles are more disappointing than a red link and give a misleading impression of our coverage. Sometimes it is better to know that an article does not exist, since it encourages editors to create a decent one :) It is certainly better to have a red link to an article that should exist but does not (such as magnificent tree frog) than delink the words. Over at WP:FLC, we interpret the criterion of usefulness as requiring a supermajority of blue links, and reject lists dominated by red links; on the other hand, we also reject lists that are tactically unlinked to eliminate red links. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: For whatever it's worth, I think in specialized articles, in particular, redlinks are good for us. Who is going to jump in to read an article about White's tree frog (other than when it's on the main page)? Froggers. Those folks will have an interest in frogs and possibly some expertise. They are, indeed, exactly the people we want going, "Oh, heavens! No article on my favorite amphibian? Let me write it!" They'll do the research and fill out something in detail, and they might stick around. If they see a blue, they might well pass it by, figuring that it will be of the same quality as what they're reading. The same principle would be true of any area where academic training is necessary, although it might not be very true of popular culture topics. Geogre 13:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was mainly concerned with the lead section, as that shouldn't have red links if it ever gets onto the front page. --liquidGhoul 13:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, please write them if you want to: mu point is just saying not to be scared of them or badgered into writing a stub just to turn them blue. I guess Raul654 would reword to avoid redlinks (or tactically delink) on the blurb for the Main Page. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Aloan is correct on both counts -- in the past (when red links were more common) I edited them from main page blurbs all the time. It's also not a very weighty objection on the FAC that something has a lot of red links. Raul654 15:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I must agree it shouldn't be used as an objection, and I wasn't. I was using it as a suggestion for further improvement, note that I did Support. I can't believe we're having this in-depth debate over red links. — Wackymacs 15:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cute Support. What an attractive creature, it can come climb vertically up my glass anytime. Seriously, this article is beautifully written. I really like the way the style and choice of words highlight the charm of the frogs (yet in an unobtrusive, encyclopedic way), and also how considerate the text is of the ignorant reader. P.S. They inhabit toilets! They become overweight and it makes them look dumpy! They call, but we know not why! They're docile! I want one! Bishonen | talk 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Object—Poorly written (full of redundancies and lack of clarity). I've edited the first half; please address my inline comments. Tony 08:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Great page - well written, and illustrated. I don't have a problem with red links, I don't like to see too many, but I suppose when writing on a subject on which Wikipedia is lacking red links are going to be inevitable. lacking. That said, it's a good informative page. Giano | talk 11:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object; inline citations do not appear to cover the entire article's text (for example, the Taxonomy section). Please add more or demonstrate that I'm wrong. --Spangineeres (háblame) 23:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inline citation are not required for featured article, and in my opinion they are not really necessary for uncontrovertial information. In addtion to the inline cites that are provided for relvant points, this article has a refernces section that list other works cousulted writing the article. From the criteria:
(c) "factually accurate" includes the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources);--nixie 02:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • re inline citations do not appear to cover the entire article's text I'm still not at all clear on the practical application of citations in Wikipedia, and I believe that's very much in development. Verifiability through verification is great in principle, but the practical application is much trickier across the entire range of topics known to mankind (which is what Wikipedia is about). From what I can gather:
  • General encyclopedias as I recall use bibliographies rather than inline citations (further research is faciliated, but the text as a whole is assumed to be trusted), whereas specialized encyclopedias (like, a legal encyclopedia) obviously need to.
  • Reputable news publications don't cite sources, but the reporters are expected to be able to essentially go to court on the verifiability and accuracy of their research.
  • Student academic papers are subject to different levels of citation requirement, for example, higher standards for graduate than undergraduate. And the requirements vary across disciplines. Also, university level papers (often) encourage or require original thought, unlike Wikipedia, so citations are necessary to clearly distinguish between what is original and what is derived or incorporated from elsewhere.
WP:CITE is only a guideline. Wikipedia Forum for Encylopedic Standards in part notes: "The guidelines must be flexible because of the broad range of topics that they must apply to. Citations of academic topics may benefit from more rigorous standards than popular culture topics."
A basic decision as to whether a citation is required seems to be the question of whether a statement is "generally known". "The sky often appears blue," doesn't have to be cited. "The sky often appears blue due to selective filtration of visible light (or whatever)," probably has to be cited. "'Hollaback Girl' is a pop song," presumably doesn't. But "'Hollaback Girl' is hip hop-influenced pop song," presumably does, or if not, why not, as it's doubtful that "most" people can immediately identify a "hip hop influence". Yet, to cite at that level for that topic is absurd. So it doesn't seem that a categorical reference to WP:CITE or a call for copious inline citations is clear or usefully applicable to every article on the FAC page. IMO. --Tsavage 00:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on clarifying my views on a subpage in my userspace. For now, I'll say that because virtually all writers of wikipedia are virtually anonymous (unless they provide their name, or we can deduce their identity from checkuser and their ip address), we have absolutely no credibility in the eyes of many. We must go above and beyond the normal practice of encyclopedias. Because non-experts write the majority of our articles, we must show that those non-experts are making abundant use of the writings of experts. The ease of verification and research is another bonus, because no college student in his or her right mind will want to cite a wikipedia article in a research paper or thesis. They shouldn't have to scour through 8 different reference works in order to find verification of what the article is saying. As for "copious" inline citations, I find that in many cases, it's possible to write a well developed paragraph (or even a multi-paragraph section) from only a few pages of one or two sources. Sometimes it just takes finding the right source. So don't worry, citations after every comma and period annoy me too. --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is now clearly off-topic for FAC, nonetheless, INTERESTING, so... It seems in part to me that the Wikipedia NOR+NPOV+Verifiability premise is sound in principle, but ultimately a defensive (even self-conscious) position in practice, and at odds with the reality of the project. What is this trying to prove to whom? If "we" wanted an academically traditional body of work, then (given what I judge is now around a million US dollar a year current funding drive/budget) wouldn't it be more efficient to hire a bunch of cause-driven researchers (give 'em an annual honorarium of $20-30K or whatever), put 'em in a house near a big library, hand them the "rules" and have them write this free-for-all encyclopedia? Within a year, a team of 20-30 Wikipedia research scribes could produce thousands of articles, all "well-written and verifiable", at least to the best of the current Featured Article standard. But I don't think that's the point, nor the drive that has given Wikipedia all of the energy and momentum it currently seems to enjoy. Is the goal to shove people into bureaucratic boxes by forcing them to increasingly adhere to "citation standards", or instead perhaps to figure out a way to emphasize the "assume good faith" principle that is obviously a central operational principle now, and vet articles in a more creative way? (BTW, I couldn't find the user subpage you referred to...) --Tsavage 02:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied this discussion to the FAC talk page, and responded there. --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied there at some length: in summary, though, my opinion is: Objections based on citations should be quite specific about how the objector is interpreting WP:Verifiability for the particular article and subject area, or should reference an equivalent FA as an example. Inline citation clutter, for one, can be real obstacle to plain old readability, so deployment of same should be guided by the case at hand. (Also, clarification, my reference to Wikipedia funding wasn't intended in any way to question that end of things, and I do realize the hardware/IT requirements are tremendous, it was just a way to emphasize a point... ;) --Tsavage 19:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dumpy Tree Neutral. I'd like to see a little more smoothing-over of the language here and there (I made a pass at it), and I'm pretty concerned about all the one-and-two paragraph sections, which I would urge you to find a way of combining. (Moving "conservation status" into the "range" section? Breaking out a separate "ecology" section and moving it into there?) I'd be remiss in my duties as the food FA guy if I didn't ask what they taste like. :-) Just kidding. I think. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't totally agree with merging the "Conservation status" section. Conservation is a big issue when it comes to animals (frogs in particular) and if someone was looking for the info, they might miss it under another sub-heading. In the end it is about trying to give information in the best way possible. --liquidGhoul 05:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided not to use it. When I uploaded it, I was intending to replace original image, but I changed my mind, and decided to keep it. I am still trying to improve the photo, so I just kept caerulea2.jpg, and will update it once I get the good photo.--liquidGhoul 03:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's jauntily readable and seems to get include all of the important gear. As a non-expert on all possible angles relating to this subject, no obvious unanswered questions came to mind, and I felt competently informed about this topic... Yet another frog... ;)(I looked at citations a little more closely in this case, but nothing that seemed radical was offered in the text, so the general references presented seemed just fine) --Tsavage 00:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article. I love to see animal FAs. One question - what are down pipes and tanks? --Bad carpet 16:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/White%27s_Tree_Frog&oldid=1058219952"