# Talk:Spinular night frog

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spinular night frog/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 00:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I always am happy to review a frog article! I'll get it done shortly. Anonymous 00:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
See below.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Spot checks look okay, as do citations. It passed my copyvio check. Ref 1 has no URL, even though I found the source online.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Missing some significant information explained below.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Image and its copyright status are good.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

There some tweaks that should be made. First, some minor layout stuff:

The lead should generally not contain information not mentioned in the body. Just sneak the alternative name into taxonomy and remove the citation for the name in the lead since it will no longer be needed.
Done.
The lead is not really long enough to warrant being two paragraphs in length instead of one.
Merged.
based on the holotype All taxonomic descriptions are "based on the holotype". This needs to be reworded.
Done.
It is currently treated as one of 34 species in the night frog genus Nyctibatrachus This wording seems to imply that this placement is tentative or disputed in some way, which, as far as I can tell, it is not. Simply saying it is a member of / belongs to the genus is probably better.
Done.
in the robust frog family Nyctibatrachidae. I suggest rewording to "in the family Nyctibatrachidae, the robust frogs".
Done.
According to a 2017 study, it is sister (most closely related) to N. gavi. I would recommend just saying "most closely related to N. gavi".
I use that definition of sister later on, so I think it's useful to gloss it here.
The extensive description of the relationships within the genus Nyctibatrachus is rather hard to follow, and it is shown in the cladogram anyway. It would be better to just focus on those closet to N. acanthodermis and let the cladogram speak for the rest.
I'd like to keep it for those with screen-readers and such; I've tried to reword it slightly, see if it's better now.
Information that should be added:

The species can be distinguished from its congeners... It would be worth naming which congeners can be distinguished by which features, as the article explains this.
Named the congeners; haven't given species-by-species comparisons that since they would most just be repeating the info from the comparisons and add three paragraphs. See also the discussion at the ''N. major FAC.
Glaringly, this species is not only known from its type locality: see here. There is also a little more information about its preferred habitat.
Added.
This shouldn't be much trouble to sort out. I found nothing else online besides what is already mentioned in this review and a few trivial things unlikely to be of any use within the scope of this article. Let me know when you get around to working on this. Anonymous 02:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

An anonymous username, not my real name, see replies above. AryKun (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
@An anonymous username, not my real name: courtesy ping. AryKun (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, my apologies, real life has been a little hectic but I'm ready to resume my work on Wikipedia. The article looks good now, although there was one slight tweak I made (moving information about the appearance of eggs to the description section). Since it definitely meets all six criteria, I've passed it now. Congratulations! Anonymous 14:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
I've reverted the change you made; the main focus of that information is the eggs, which would, to me, obviously belong in the breeding section. I don't think any articles describe eggs in the Description section, they just have a sentence or two on this in Breeding. AryKun (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
It may be worth pointing out that the section in question is not actually called "Breeding" but "Distribution, ecology, and conservation". Between these two sections, description feels like the better choice. Anonymous 14:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

May I ask why you don't believe that information about the appearance of the eggs should be a part of the description, @AryKun:? The sentence in question is not about reproductive behaviors, but solely about their appearance, which seems to better fit into the description. Anonymous 14:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, because the description section is presumably to help identify the species, and very few people identify species by their eggs. Looking at our current frog FAs, Australian green tree frog has it in Description, cane toad and common toad have it in Breeding, and Mini scule has no information on breeding. I'm much more experienced with bird articles than frogs, and every bird article I've ever seen places the description of the eggs in the Breeding section, for the similar reason that outside of a very few species with distinctive eggs, the appearance of the eggs doesn't really matter. AryKun (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that the section is not actually called "Breeding". Anonymous 15:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Breeding is a part of ecology; there just really isn't enough information to split those sections out. AryKun (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)