Talk:Northern red-legged frog

message: The opening paragraph and the "Habitat" section are unclearly referenced. Fixing these would make it a near cinch for GA, although it is a little short. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 16:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added several cites to intro and habitat sections. I think your comment was a good one and improved the whole tone of the article.  The inherent problem is, of course, there are a very limited number of sources for this specialized and understudied creature, so one ends up going back to the same limited sources. I have also expanded the length of the article, especially in the breeding section, so total characters are now about 1000 greater than when you saw it last. Marginal increases in length now pretty hard to come by. Let me know what you think.  Thanks for your help. Regards. Covalent 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: The expansion and additional refs worked great. It's a GA. :-) - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 01:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Passed GA

message: :This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Northern Red-legged Frog/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
===GA Sweeps: On hold===
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a GA. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.
#The image needs alt text. See WP:ALT for instructions. 
#Some information is mentioned within the lead that is not located within the article. Make sure that all statements are covered elsewhere in its respective section.
#"Rana aurora adults may attain a length of eight centimeters." This should also include the alternate measurement. Fix any other occurrences throughout the article.
#"In some systems of taxonomy, this species is classified as Rana aurora aurora." I don't believe that "Rana aurora aurora" needs to be bolded.
#"The Northern Red-legged Frog is found in every coastal county of California from Mendocino County northward and including coastal Oregon." This has been tagged with needing a source since October 2007.
#"The species is thought to intergrade with Rana draytonii in Marin County and Sonoma County, California, but has been observed as far south as San Mateo County." This could use a citation as well as clarification as to who thinks this occurs.
#Much of the "Habitat" and "Breeding" sections are unsourced. Add citations after each statement that may be challenged by a reader who may have a limited understanding of the topic.
#"The male is thought to defend territory (animal), once he..." This should be reworded.
#The two journal articles in the "see also" section should be moved to a further reading section (or incorporated as sources if possible).
#Is there any available information on the lifespan of the frog? Could any information be added about when the frog was first discovered?
#If possible see if there any new available sources for further expanding the article.
I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. Once the above issues are addressed, I'll help do a final copyedit of the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article should be delisted. It is still decent, but it needs a complete rewrite to stay as a GA. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, it lacks a "description" section, so it may not qualify even as a B-class article. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Reassessment

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a GA. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.
#The image needs alt text. See WP:ALT for instructions. 
#Some information is mentioned within the lead that is not located within the article. Make sure that all statements are covered elsewhere in its respective section.
#"Rana aurora adults may attain a length of eight centimeters." This should also include the alternate measurement. Fix any other occurrences throughout the article.
#"In some systems of taxonomy, this species is classified as Rana aurora aurora." I don't believe that "Rana aurora aurora" needs to be bolded.
#"The Northern Red-legged Frog is found in every coastal county of California from Mendocino County northward and including coastal Oregon." This has been tagged with needing a source since October 2007.
#"The species is thought to intergrade with Rana draytonii in Marin County and Sonoma County, California, but has been observed as far south as San Mateo County." This could use a citation as well as clarification as to who thinks this occurs.
#Much of the "Habitat" and "Breeding" sections are unsourced. Add citations after each statement that may be challenged by a reader who may have a limited understanding of the topic.
#"The male is thought to defend territory (animal), once he..." This should be reworded.
#The two journal articles in the "see also" section should be moved to a further reading section (or incorporated as sources if possible).
#Is there any available information on the lifespan of the frog? Could any information be added about when the frog was first discovered?
#If possible see if there any new available sources for further expanding the article.
I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. Once the above issues are addressed, I'll help do a final copyedit of the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article should be delisted. It is still decent, but it needs a complete rewrite to stay as a GA. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, it lacks a "description" section, so it may not qualify even as a B-class article. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps: On hold

message: The article has been on hold for a week and the majority of issues were not addressed. As a result I have delisted the article as it still has a way to go before meeting the GA criteria. Continue to improve the article, addressing the issues above. Once they are addressed, please renominate the article at WP:GAN. I look forward to seeing the further improvement of the article, and don't hesitate to contact me if you need assistance with any of these. If you disagree with this review, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps: Delisted