Nyctibatrachus major is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 23, 2024.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 20, 2023 Good article nominee Listed November 15, 2023 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance Nyctibatrachus major is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in November 2023.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nyctibatrachus major/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 14:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning AryKun! I will get started on this soon; I don't expect the initial review to take too long. I'm excited to work with you, Very Respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 14:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up the review! AryKun (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Copyediting
  • Is there a link that can be made for "femoral glands"? I'm not familiar with that term.
    • Glossed and tentatively redirected to femoral pores, although that article seems to address the femoral pores in reptiles.

• • "while subadults can also be found during the day" is slightly confusing. Are subadults both nocturnal and found in the daytime? Or are adults found at night and subadults in the day?
    • Subadults are both nocturnal and diurnal; any suggestions for wording to make this clearer?
      • Gave it a shot, feel free to change if it doesn't work Fritzmann (message me) 18:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • "they then designated an adult female collected from "Malabar" the lectotype..." of N. major?
    • Yeah, I think this is self-evident from the context if you know what lectotype is; I would've glossed electrotype, but the definition itself requires you to know what syntype means, so it's pointless.

• • "this species was synonymised with N. major by the herpetologist R. S. Pillai in 1978" why?
    • Probably because of lack of morphological similarity, don't really think it's too important.

• • "There are no subspecies of N. major." seems self-evident; probably redundant
    • Well, someone might think that the article is simply not comprehensive instead of monotypic, so kept it.

• • "(group of organisms descending from a common ancestor)" I'm hesitant as to whether this descriptor is necessary. At least from my point of view, clade is a sufficiently accessible term to the public, and can be easily understood by following the link. I'd like to know your thoughts on this one, it's an interesting approach that I haven't seen before.
    • I've usually glossed clade in my articles, most people are not gonna know cladistics.

• • The paragraph after that point is rather difficult for me to wrap my head around. I think the cladogram does an excellent job of conveying the relationships, while the prose is a little clunky. Perhaps the cladogram could be moved up, and then discussion of the disagreements about its relationships expounded upon afterwards? That might make it easier for readers to follow.
    • Reworded slightly, but I can't really think of a way to significantly alter the description. It's basically a written version of the cladogram.
      • Made a few more changes, think we can call that good Fritzmann (message me) 18:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • "The species has had its DNA barcoded." is there any significance to this? Has it led to any discoveries or the like?
    • Not really, added this for comprehensiveness and because it seemed somewhat important. Might be used to id the species for conservation, but haven't seen anything that specifically mentions doing this.

• • "with a brown body and underside of head" is unclear
    • Reworded.

• • "they can be distinguished by the lack of grooves on the fingers" distinguished from other species or the adults?
    • Daniels is not too clear on this point, but I think he means from adults.

• • Link or explain "advertisement calls" and "frequency band"
    • Linked.

• • "may be due to the fact that these two species inhabit the same microhabitat as it" is there perhaps a better way to word this?
    • I can't really think of one that isn't overly convoluted, but am open to any suggestion you have.

• • "anthropogenic pressure" could be simplified to something like "human impacts"
    • Done.

• Y In general, the prose is very well-written and understandable
• Y The coverage of the article is sufficiently broad and covers all major topic areas of interest

• Y Exceptionally low Earwig score of 2.9%, and spotcheck of references yields no issues.
  • [3] is accurately represented. I really like the use of the quotations around the antiquated geographic terms!
  • [13] is well summarized in the section on vocalizations.
  • [16]'s major points are addressed throughout the article and are all verifiable.

• Y Article is stable, with one primary editor and no outstanding conflict
• Y Article is exceptionally well-illustrated, and all images are suitably licensed on Commons

An excellently written article. Once the few copyediting changes are taken care of, I see no reason why this shouldn't pass to become a GA. Fritzmann (message me) 15:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted two of your c/e changes: the duplink for Nyctibatrachus and the semicolons in the list. I think that for lists where each object is a lengthy phrase, semicolons are more readable than commas. AryKun (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick responses, all of your justifications and reasoning are very well-thought out and make sense. I've made one or two more minor changes, but anything more than that would just be needless nitpicking. The article is in great shape and I feel more than comfortable in promoting it to GA. I hope I have the chance to work with you again, it has been a very positive experience. Very Respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 18:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on getting this article to the main page. I received information that File:Nyctibatrachus_major_Davidraju.jpg was likely not to be N. major but a different species possibly Nyctibatrachus kempholeyensis or Nyctibatrachus vrijeuni. To be on the safe side, I have removed the image from the article. The image information does not include the location. I am not a frog specialist but I am happy to connect anyone to the person who raised the issue. Shyamal (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Or maybe N. aliciae following discussions between the photographer and the specialist. Shyamal (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]