User talk:SEBsmile8/Spikethumb frog

Outline Feedback

Nice job! Overall the information flows well from one section to the next. Some of the subsection headers should be simplified to that readers without a background in evolutionary ecology will understand what information will be presented in each section. I suggest renaming "Morphology" to "Appearance", and "Axillary Amplexus" to "Copulation". I would eliminate the main "Behavior and Ecology" header and just have your three main sections be Appearance, Habitat, and Reproduction.

The reproduction section would benefit from a short leading paragraph that describes general information about reproduction, like their mating system and fertilization mode. The male-male competition section has information on direct intrasexual competition and mate attraction, so I would split this subsection into two. First, you may talk about male vocalizations during mate attraction and patterns of female male choice. In the next subsection, you may talk about how males interact with other males during mate competition. Then, the Axillary Amplexus (Copulation) subsection may talk about the special behaviors they do during copulation. Is the teeth scraping a form of copulatory courtship? What are the associated costs and benefits of this behavior for both sexes?

A great start overall!

Elioeilish (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Response to Instructor Feedback

Global / local response: I have unpacked most of the important words that a reader might not know. I did this by adding a brief definition or explanation of what these terms mean. I did this for prepollex, alary process, premaxilla, external fertilization, and axillary amplexus. As mentioned, it is hard to know which words different readers will find difficult to understand, but I found these words essential to understanding this genus, and thus is the reason that I chose to expand upon them in my article. I also addressed the sentence describing the size of Spikethumb frogs, and removed the part about them being 'moderate to large in size'. Thank you for the advice, I think that this will make it easier for readers from more backgrounds to understand my article.

--SEBsmile8 (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review

Overall, your first draft reads very well. Although I did not know anything about spikethumb frogs prior to reading this draft, I was able to use background information provided in the article lead, appearance, habitat, and reproduction lead sections to better understand your main sections on male-male competition and copulation.

In regard to global aspects, I think you set the article up nicely. First, you put the majority of your word count within the reproduction section, and kept it relatively even between the two subsections. This is good since you wanted to focus on mating behavior in general. Second, you provided plenty of clearly worded explanation of axillary amplexus. You set this delivery up by providing secondary sex characteristics within the appearance section and then later explaining their role in the copulation subsection. Third, you provided details in your earlier sections which aided in your main section on reproduction, such as the mention of secondary sex characteristics in the appearance section. As for improvements, I think it may be useful to expand the reproduction lead section, maybe including the type of mating system these frogs use in this section. Second, as the topic of male-male combat with the prepollex seems like an interesting part of male-male competition, I think it could be helpful to search your sources again and see if you can add any more helpful details to that section within the male-male competition subsection.

In regard to local aspects, I again am impressed overall. First, you provide several citations per paragraph, which support your material for your readers. Second, you avoid fragments or continuous run-on sentences, which allows your ideas to flow nicely and be easily digestible. As for details you could improve upon, I was a bit confused when reading your additions to the article lead section. It seems as though your genus has had many changes so I assume it is just confusing in general, but maybe you could reexamine wording or sentence structure to provide clarity for readers. Second, you should correct the spelling of your second section to "Appearance" rather than "Appearence." Third, you only use 8 of your 14 sources as citations, so you could examine the other 6 sources again to find any other helpful details you could include in your article.

I think you are off to a great start, and I enjoyed reading your first draft.

Kmbio (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review 1 Response:

Thanks for reading my article and for providing me with ideas on a few areas that I could improve on!

Global Responses:

1)“I think it may be useful to expand the reproduction lead section, maybe including the type of mating system these frogs use in this section.”

While I also think that this would be a useful addition to the reproduction lead section, the general reproduction information for this genus, except for their copulatory mechanism, is very limited. In fact, there have only been a few mating’s that have been observed for this genus. I searched through my articles, and even tried looking for more articles, however I was unable to locate the mating system used by this genus. I will leave this space available for other Wikipedia users, who might have access to additional sources.

2)“Second, as the topic of male-male combat with the prepollex seems like an interesting part of male-male competition, I think it could be helpful to search your sources again and see if you can add any more helpful details to that section within the male-male competition subsection.”

I think that this would be a useful addition to the male-male competition section. However, unfortunately, as mentioned above, male-male combat also has very limited available information, outside of the information already provided. In fact, male-male combat has never been observed before. This means that research suggests male-male combat, due to scars present only on males, in addition to the mating site being a likely limiting resource. However, I might be able to add to this section by adding an image of the scars found on males, likely from this male-male combat.

Local Responses:

1)“As for details you could improve upon, I was a bit confused when reading your additions to the article lead section. It seems as though your genus has had many changes so I assume it is just confusing in general, but maybe you could reexamine wording or sentence structure to provide clarity for readers.”

I restructured this section to have better readability, while trying to maintain a similar level of detail. The revisions in phylogenetic classifications are described in multiple sources, indicating that these revisions are likely an important aspect of this genus. I restructured these sentences in the order that these events took place chronologically in time, hoping that it would make the section easier to understand.

2)“Second, you should correct the spelling of your second section to "Appearance" rather than "Appearence."”

I corrected this spelling error, thanks!

3)“Third, you only use 8 of your 14 sources as citations, so you could examine the other 6 sources again to find any other helpful details you could include in your article.”

After annotating my remaining sources, four of the initial fourteen sources proved to not be beneficial to this Wikipedia project. I have reduced the number of sources to 10 and was able to find helpful information from all 10 of these. Most of my additions were made to the most researched section, the section about copulation.

--SEBsmile8 (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

Global: This article is very well researched, overall, and is well written ! You do a good job of explaining the complex copulatory mechanisms seen for this species in a way that is easy to follow and understand. The Habitat section could perhaps use some detail on what role Spikethumbs play in their environment (who are their predators, what do they eat, etc?) since you give a little detail on the characteristics of the environment.

In the Reproduction section, I think some more information would help the reader contextualize the points you are introducing. For example, what type of mating system is present would help inform the basis for male-male competition. Also, does m-m competition result in any characters/traits under sexual selection or is there any evidence of female choice on male copulatory traits (upper lips, teeth, copulation time, etc)? Things along this route would add to the reader's understanding.

Local: Very few suggestions for local edits, the article is generally well written and professional ! The Lead section might need to be cut down, as the finer points of which species belong to which genus is easy to get lost in. If this can be reformatted to be a little easier to follow, that would help.

The Appearance section might need some clarification of terms, so that the reader is not held up by frog-specific terminology in the third sentence. If you can find a picture from any of your sources of the features you are describing, that would be an easy fix. Overall, really nice job and interesting subject ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mel.mcguire (talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review 2 Response:

Thanks for reading my article and for providing me with ideas on a few areas that I could improve on!

Global Response:

1)"The Habitat section could perhaps use some detail on what role Spikethumbs play in their environment (who are their predators, what do they eat, etc?) since you give a little detail on the characteristics of the environment."

While I also think that this would be a useful addition to the habitat section, the information for this section is also very limited in my sources. I searched through my sources again and could not find any additional information that pertained to these aspects of the habitat section. In fact, the most available information is presented for the copulation section, which is my most well-developed section. I think that introducing the habitat characteristics both provides a segment into the reproduction section (as the habitat likely has a role in male-male competition, as suggested by research), and also provides a starting point for other Wikipedia users to add more information, if they have access to other sources that I am unable to access, which might discuss predators and food.

2)"In the Reproduction section, I think some more information would help the reader contextualize the points you are introducing. For example, what type of mating system is present would help inform the basis for male-male competition. Also, does m-m competition result in any characters/traits under sexual selection or is there any evidence of female choice on male copulatory traits (upper lips, teeth, copulation time, etc)? Things along this route would add to the reader's understanding."

These are both great ideas, however, this information is not presented in any of my sources unfortunately. I explain this in my response to the first peer review above. I added more information to the copulation section in place of this information.

Local Response:

1)"The Lead section might need to be cut down, as the finer points of which species belong to which genus is easy to get lost in. If this can be reformatted to be a little easier to follow, that would help."

Peer reviewer number one also suggested this, and I restructured the sentences to hopefully make the section more readable.

2)"The Appearance section might need some clarification of terms, so that the reader is not held up by frog-specific terminology in the third sentence. If you can find a picture from any of your sources of the features you are describing, that would be an easy fix."

Thanks for pointing this out. I added a few hyperlinks to relevant terms in this section, and will try to incorporate an image of the prepollex in the final article, to make it easier for the reader to visualize this structure.

--SEBsmile8 (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review 3

Global Comment: Overall, I thought this draft was very interesting and well-written. Firstly, your draft looks well-organized and has a nice flow to it. I like how the content is organized and that the majority of your content is focused on the reproduction section and its subsections. Secondly, the sections and subsections are structured nicely which makes your draft easily understandable. For instance, you provided basic information about secondary sex characteristics like ossified prepollex and elongated maxillary and premaxillary teeth in the appearance section. Later, you used this information in explaining the mating behaviors in reproduction subsections. For improvements, I think adding a little more data in the main section of reproduction might be helpful. Maybe you can add something about the average number of offspring produced or the mating system of the species. Secondly, I feel like expanding a little in male-male section, like male-male combat can be helpful in making two subsections of reproduction sections comparatively even in terms of content. Local Comment: As I mentioned earlier I thought your article is well-written and organized properly which aids in making the draft easily readable. I think the sentence structure is good and I didn’t see any grammatical mistakes. I also liked how you used multiple citations in each section. For improvements, I noticed that only 8 of your listed sources are used in the articles. I think that looking into the unused sources and adding some useful information for that might help. You can also add hyperlinks to a few words to make your final draft easily readable. I think your first draft was nicely written and I enjoyed reading it. Jmt39 (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review Response 3:

Thanks for reading my article and for providing me with ideas on a few areas that I could improve on! I think that these are great ideas. Peer reviews 1 and 2 also addressed these global and local comments. Therefore, I have explained how I incorporated and navigated these possible improvements above in my first two peer review responses.

Global Responses:

1)“For improvements, I think adding a little more data in the main section of reproduction might be helpful. Maybe you can add something about the average number of offspring produced or the mating system of the species.”

Explored above in peer review 1 and 2.

2)“Secondly, I feel like expanding a little in male-male section, like male-male combat can be helpful in making two subsections of reproduction sections comparatively even in terms of content.”

Explored above in peer review 1 and 2.

Local Responses:

1)“For improvements, I noticed that only 8 of your listed sources are used in the articles. I think that looking into the unused sources and adding some useful information for that might help.”

Explored above in peer review 1 and 2.

2)“You can also add hyperlinks to a few words to make your final draft easily readable.”

Explored above in peer review 1 and 2.

--SEBsmile8 (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Peer review 4

Global comment  

The article provides information about spikethumb frogs, including their appearance, habitat, reproduction, and male-male competition. One positive aspect of the article is its organization. The content is divided into several sections, each focusing on a specific aspect of spikethumb frogs, making it easy for the reader to understand the different aspects of these creatures. Another positive aspect is the use of scientific terms and concepts that provide a more in-depth understanding of spikethumb frogs. One suggestion for improvement is to include more information about the conservation status of these species and the threats they face. Additionally, the article could benefit from a conclusion summarizing the key points and highlighting the importance of spikethumb frogs in their ecosystem.

Local comment

Overall, the article is well-structured. The author uses appropriate vocabulary and grammar, and the article is well-cited, including both in-text citations and a list of references at the end.Two strengths of the article include its organization and its use of scientific terminology. The article is structured in a logical and straightforward way, making it easy for readers to follow. Additionally, the author uses scientific terminology appropriately, which is important for accuracy and credibility. Areas for improvement in the article can be providing more detail about the research conducted on spikethumb frogs. While the article does include references to research, it would be helpful to provide more detail about the methods and results of these studies. Aseb101 (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review 4 Response:

Thanks for reading my article and for providing me with ideas on a few areas that I could improve on!

Global response: I am glad to hear that you found my article to be well organized, equally distributed across topics, and that scientific terms were used correctly. While I also think that adding the conservation status of these frogs, and the importance of these frogs in their ecosystem, would be a beneficial addition to this Wikipedia page, unfortunately the information for this topic is not explained in any of the sources that were used in my Wikipedia project. Most of my research emphasized reproduction and mating behaviors. With that being said, hopefully other Wikipedia users can expand upon the information I have provided, if they have access to the information you have suggested.

Local response: The reason that I included “research suggests” in my article is because male-male competition has not been observed, however research from multiple sources indicates that it takes place. The addition of the methods and results section of the research would not be appropriate for this context.

Thanks again for reading my article. --SEBsmile8 (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Peer review 5

Global comment: Although the scientific terminology is accurate and well-used, I'd suggest adding a few brief definitions for users who might not know a lot of technical terms (e.g. the alary process of the premaxilla). I think the acronyms (SMG, OMG, SPF) aren't necessary under the Copulation section, since you continue to use the full words (and I think that's the right decision because someone reading a Wikipedia article will probably have to go back to the start of the section to remember what the acronyms stand for). The article overall has a good amount of detail and citations for backing, and the organization of sections is good.

Local comment: Under the male-male competition section, I would change "the enlarged, ossified prepollex is presumably used during this combat, leaving scars on the head and forelimbs of males. These scars are not observed on females" to be more hypothetical, since the researchers in the paper didn't directly observe males fighting and only found one male with the scars. So rather than "presumably," a phrase like "the enlarged, ossified prepollex may be used during this combat." You do a good job explaining terminology in the copulation section--you explain what each term means and why it's significant before moving on. EileenPlants (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review 5 Response:

Thanks for reading my article and for providing me with ideas on a few areas that I could improve on!

Global response: I am glad to hear that you found my article organized with plenty of information. I agree with both of your comments and have removed the acronyms and provided brief definitions for a few of the technical terms (e.g., alary process, premaxilla, prepollex, external fertilization, axillary amplexus, etc.).

Local response: I agree with the local comment provided. I changed “presumably” to “may be” in the specified sentence. I also explained more terms, as done in the copulation section, in my other sections.

Thanks again for reading my article. --SEBsmile8 (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)