Talk:Moor frog

message: Or what about a "cultural influences" section that includes the Moor Frog game?? PurpleWriter (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous facts

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edible Frog which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 15:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Moor frog in Sarek National Park (DSCF2796).jpg
Moor frog in Sarek National Park (DSCF2803).jpg
I took these pictures in Sarek National Park, Sweden. I think they are Moor frog (non-spotted underside, while spots going along the center of the back, similar look as pictures I saw in commons:Category:Rana arvalis), but I am by no mean an expert. Can someone confirm or correct my categorization? --Trougnouf (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help identifying potential moor frog 

message: — Assignment last updated by Eurquhart02 (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Behavioral Ecology 2022

message: This article is overall very good. I made lots of minor edits to the wording and moved around some sentences. I think that there is a spot where a citation is needed, but I am not sure what source should be cited there. Overall, great work I think the article has been vastly improved by your efforts.  ShawnMohammed (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Great description with the frog's ecology! I removed the "Population Threat's section and added it into the "Conservation" section as a subheading to make the chronology of the reading easier. As an entire work, the description of the frog's diet is thoughtful, though I would consider adding a description on the frog's predators and enemies to contrast the section. ~~~~ Hoonji2022 (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relocated Population Threats into Conservation Section 

message: changed to "A few members from a population from Karasuk were able to freeze solid to -16℃, thaw, and survive." Elwhoelwu (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Did you know nomination

message: This article is phenomenal.  Great images and image captions throughout the article. Incredible depth of research. There were some instances of informal languuage (e.g., "The moor frog's genus, Rana, is a little more specific." I split the diet section into a smaller paragraph.
I thought that the taxonomy section was a little bit strange, but am not confident enough in this to change the article. It seems like you do very general explanation of genus and family that aren't necessarily important to a page on a specific species of frog. Frogboi123 (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer edit 

message: Amazing article! Such thorough information throughout, covering a wide range of topics. Impressive work! I only made a couple of minor grammar edits and shortened/combined a few sentences. There is a citation needed for the "frog of the fields" expression, although a quick comb through the web was fruitless for me. In description, you state the male and female lengths; is this referring to snout-vent length, or something else? In the last paragraph of Distribution and Habitat, a quick explanation of the rewilding plans could prove useful. The only information I found to be more lacking was information about the tadpoles' description and diet. I am unsure of exactly what the rules for citing are, but I think you only have to cite at the end of a chunk of information, as long as there aren't other sources in between.
Great job! It was a nice read.
AnnieLiu13 (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Edit 

message: Contrary to a comment stated above, I felt as though the taxonomy section was great and provided a nice overview of the origins of the frogs name. I did, however, move it lower in the article since I feel as though other descriptions might be more important. 
I dd some general edits to sentence structure and divided some paragraphs into shorter ones to help with the flow of the article. I also removed some redundant information. Moreover, I removed some informal language such as the description of their breeding calls. 
Carolinaalisio (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The taxonomy needs some major work. It should include who described it, when, and any synonyms or subspecies. Additionally, the vast majority of Wikipedia articles on animal species are written with taxonomy at the top, as this is one of the most important aspects, not all the way at the bottom. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Edit 

message: I made a couple changes to address the comments from the Good Article review above.
1) "This suggests that post-copulatory competition may be just as important as pre-copulatory competition." --> deleted
2) "...selects for investment in larger eggs at a cost to fecundity, imposes negative effects on reproductive output, and alters the relationship between female phenotype and maternal investment." --> reworded so that it is not exactly copied from original source.
3) "This is also why high habitat pH (i.e. low concentration of protons in a pool) causes egg coat glycans to deprotonate (i.e. give up their protons) which restores the egg coat’s negative charge/attraction to water." --> defining protonation/deprotonation is outside the scope of this article. Got rid of text inside of parenthesis.
4) spell out "International Union for Conservation of Nature" in first mention of IUCN
5) "Acidification, eutrophication, and other forms of water pollution are negatively affecting the aquatic habitats of moor frogs which is exacerbating their already critical condition." --> these frogs are "least concern". They are not in critical condition. Reworded to "negatively affect aquatic habitats of moor frogs". Frogboi123 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Edit