Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.231.72.45 (talk) at 00:05, 7 January 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date to come

Australian green tree frog received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

HIV

According to this article, the skin secretions of White's tree frog have the abillity to destroy HIV. I am not comfertable with putting this in the article yet, as I think it is not really useful for an encyclopaedic article, until there is a use for the peptides. E.g., if it is used as a preventative or cure. What are your thoughts? --liquidGhoul 03:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I would include this information. Even though this may turn out to not be a cure for HIV, the fact that it is being investigated and you have a citation is good enough. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Life span

The life span in captivity is specifically mentioned, is the lifespan in the wild known? Since they are referred to as long lived in the conservation status, it'd be good to have the figure.--nixie 03:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Basically all I can find on it, is statements like this: "life span in the wild is much shorter due to heavy predation" (source). However, I don't trust this, as there is no actual research cited, and I think it would be nearly impossible to figure out their avergae life span in the wild. I wouldn't mind adding "the average life span in the wild is shorter, due to predation" as that statement is safer. As 1) if predation is the only thing that causes shorter life, then I am sure that there have been frogs that have reached an old age (and not saying average gives the impression of all frogs live shorter life) and 2) "heavy predation" is a phrase I would like to avoid. --liquidGhoul 03:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

One last query- the lead now says they live for 16 years- is there a reference for this?- If not I think it's safest to say that it lives for over 10 years--nixie 01:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

On the ADW site, they say it is 16 years, and cite (Duellman, 1986). I don't know if this is good enough reference, so if you still don't like it, I will change it. I have noticed that it says 15 years lower, so I will change that to 16. --liquidGhoul 01:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It gerat the it'd got a reference, I was just corious when I saw it was added by a new editor to the page.--nixie 03:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, right, that was me. I got the 16 years from the "life span" section of this article which is noted in Note#4 which is being used to reference the same info in the last paragraph of the "Ecology and behaviour" section. --maclean25 20:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Tony1's Edits

Tony, just some discussion on your edits and suggestions.

1) "It has a very distinct appearance, green or brown in colour with large features"

You removed colour, which makes it seem incomplete. I will also change it to physical features.

2) Suggestion: in comparison with most other frogs in captivity or in the wild? The comparison is unclear. 'throughout the world' appears a few seconds later as well.

It doesn't even mention in the wild, so why would that be an option of ambiguity. Would you rather "globally" than "throughout the world"?

3)Suggestion: So ... Victoria does or doesn't have winters that are too cold for it? Unclear.

Somebody changed this to "Occasionaly it is found in Victoria", it should have said that it is found in northern Victoria.

4) You started one of the paragraphs with "because", and I have always been taught that it is bad style to start a sentence, let alone a paragraph, with because. I really don't like that change.

5) This seems to be something you had a problem with. The repetitions found in the article, were all from the intro. I am not completely aware of the writing style of Misplaced Pages yet, but with most articles (non-wikipedian) the intro introduces the basic ideas in the article. The rest of the article must expand upon these ideas, which requires the restatment of them. I will give you an example. In the second paragraph of taxonomy, you deleted the leading sentence: "The species has been introduced to both the United States and New Zealand." This section was stated in the intro, but has to be repeated for the readers who are only interested in that section (and therefore skip the lead section). If you remove it, the entire paragraph is not introduced properly and results in fragmentation. "The species has been introduced to two regions in Florida, in the US, possibly through the pet trade." You have basically repeated what you omited from the lead sentence, but placed it within the sentences already there. There is no reason for this, and it just makes it a lot harder to read. The same goes with your other intro repetition changes.

Thanks for your other edits and suggestions.

The Lead section should summarise the main body of the article. This often means that specific points mentioned in the lead section are repeated and amplified in the body of the article. It may be possible to avoid with some elegant variation, but do not worry about too much about it. . -- ALoan (Talk) 14:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks ALoan, I have always had trouble with the lead section. I tried to have as little repetetion, by keeping out specifics. However during the peer review, the changes made by people suggested that they like some specifics in the lead. E.g. I had originally said "large frog", which was later elaborated on, by adding "up to 100mm". --liquidGhoul 03:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

'Colour' seems redundant after green or brown; much better removed. 'Physical features' is still unclear; do you mean cancerous tumours, or what? I'm unsure what was wrong with the changes to the NZ/US sentence, which appeared to be much improved, but has now returned to repetitiveness. There's no need to deal with both countries in the opening sentence—that forces you to add more words. Why not deal with one at a time? Tony 23:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It is good for the paragraph to have an opening sentence, so as to set the subject of the paragraph. It should flow, from the basics of that subject into the specifics. Your suggestion goes straight into the specifics, making it flow much less. I cannot see the repetition, unless you are talking about the intro (see above).

Yes, your paragraph opening is better, liquidGhoul, don't change it. Since the paragraph is about the US and NZ, its topic sentence (=first sentence) does need to mention both, even at the expence of using a (very) few more words. It would be confusing to have the topic sentence imply that only half the topic (=the US) will be dealt with. Bishonen | talk 06:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

NZ/US thing is OK, I guess. In 'Ecology', common nouns, such as 'toilet', 'summer', 'sink', and 'dog' have been delinked—turns it into a dictionary. High-value links are welcome, but the higher the density of links, the harder it is to read, the less attractive on the page, and the less likely readers are to hit the focused ones. (See Misplaced Pages:Make only links relevant to the context, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting). Please note 'compare with', not to for contrasts.

OK, thanks. Also, thanks for the change to the stress call sentence. That is one I have had trouble making flow.

Sounds like a lot of predators: do you mean 'some' or 'several species of' snakes

I see your point, it is mostly snakes, and very few lizards and birds. --liquidGhoul 03:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

check 'another'—is the three days in addition to the two?

"Another" is not necessary. The eggs hatch after three days from being laid.

Request

Can someone fix this sentence, I have tried but cannot get anywhere. The problem is with the second section, it is far too fragmented.

Like many frogs, White's tree frogs call not only to attract a mate; they will also call outside mating season, usually after rain, to advertise their location, for unknown reasons.

Is this any better?

Like many frogs, White's tree frogs call not only to attract a mate; they have been observed calling to advertise their location outside the mating season, usually after rain, for reasons that are uncertain to researchers.

I avoided the implication that the frogs are uncertain. If you're unhappy with the number of commas (I think they're ok), try:

Like many frogs, White's tree frogs call not only to attract a mate; they have been observed calling to advertise their location outside the mating season, usually after rain; the reasons for this behaviour are uncertain.

If you don't like two semicolons in the same sentence (nothing wrong with that, IMV), consider turning the second one into a full stop.

Tony 01:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, I like the first one. I will change it now. --liquidGhoul 01:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Category

How does this article fit into "biology and medicine"? 64.231.72.45 00:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review