Talk:Rhacophorus kio
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Featured picture scheduled for POTD
editHello! This is to let editors know that File:Rhacophorus kio.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for August 27, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-08-27. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 10:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
|
|
Rhacophorus kio is a species of frog in the family Rhacophoridae. First described from Laos, the species is also known from southern China (Yunnan and Guangxi), northern Thailand, eastern India, Vietnam, and Cambodia. It is an arboreal species that has been recorded from primary and secondary evergreen rainforests with a closed canopy, generally at low elevations. This R. kio frog was photographed in Kui Buri National Park, Thailand. Photograph credit: Rushenb
Recently featured:
|
Wiki Education assignment: Behavioral Ecology 2022
edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Qazwsx1515 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lvanzen3, Froggo1324, JackRuvin0, Turturenhydra.
— Assignment last updated by CalJS (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Nominator is no longer editing.
- ... that Rhacophorus kio (pictured), a tree frog from Southeast Asia, is able to glide through the air with the webbing on its hands and feet? Source: Genomic adaptations for arboreal locomotion in Asian flying treefrogs
- Reviewed:
Created by Qazwsx1515 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC).
- General eligibility:
- New enough:
- y (expanded) - Long enough:
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
QPQ: 
Overall: 
@Qazwsx1515: Can you link to a video? Ruwaym (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ruwaym: The nominator hasn't edited since October 19. Is this nomination good to go otherwise? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- Update: the nominator has edited, but only about a different frog. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Nominator hasn't edited since the 18th. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Ruwaym, the nominator is not required to do a QPQ, and it looks like you've said everything else is okay. (It doesn't matter if the nominator is no longer active as long as there are no problems for them to deal with.) If this is okay, could you please complete your review and give a final tick? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Original reviewer is unable to continue at this time (although it appears they were all done except for the tick). New reviewer needed to complete. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
nominator is QPQ exempt, tick per Ruwaym. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Qazwsx1515: please see WP:DYKCRIT:
Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact
. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC) - Marking for closure if no one wants to fix the issues. Nominator has not edited since November 30. SL93 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
@Ruwaym: You can find a video in this paper. You can find it in the supporting information section. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116342119#supplementary-materials Qazwsx1515 (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Qazwsx1515 So sorry for being late. That is good, and working. Ruwaym (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Recommendations for "Description" section
editThe tadpole section can be placed under a different section such as "Development" to help keep the "Description" section more concise and focused on the adult frog. The description of the color of the frog can benefit from some clarification. It is stated that the dorsal side of the frog is "grass green" and marked with "white spots". Is the dorsal side also marked with "yellow spots"? The phrase "its sides are a dark brown color" can also be specified by describing what "sides" are dark brown. Froggo1324 (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, I will clarify the description better Qazwsx1515 (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I elaborated a bit on the section of Caiusa infestation. I couldn't find any direct statements in source 9 that infer that the leafy structures of frog nests are responsible for the protection of eggs from danger. Froggo1324 (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Peer Review
editCitations needed for information in the Lead section.
I moved the last sentence of the Lead so that it is right after the sentence about the two black-webbed treefrog species (it didn’t really make sense at the end of the paragraph).
I’ve edited a few clunky sentences to shorten them and make them clearer.
Under the “Differences between Rhacophorus kio and R. reinwardtii” section, it’s written that “the breeding populations of R. kio are relatively small.” Relative to what? R. reinwardtii? Or to other frog species in general? I would specify.
Under Habitat, “R. kio have been observed at a height of 57 m in Southwest China.” Is this referring to height in the canopy? The next sentence talks about canopy height. I would specify “R. kio have been observed up to 57 m high in the forest canopy in southwest China” since the sentence prior is about elevation from sea level, whereas here I think it’s just talking about height in the canopy.
The same beginning sentence is used for both the Habitat and Distribution sections. I would rephrase the one for distribution since that it more about distribution geographically, not what kinds of forests they prefer.
I would maybe figure out someway to reword the distribution section since it gets pretty repetitive (although I’m not sure how a list of provinces could even be reworded to not be repetitive).
They can glide? That’s so cool! Put that in the Lead!!! Can R. reinwardtii also glide?
Overall, this article is really interesting, and I’m super impressed with the amount of information considering how difficult finding sources must have been since R. reinwardtii has the same common name and the species were only separated in 2006.
There isn’t a whole lot of emphasis on the behavior of the species which I think would benefit the article. Is there competition between males with how they call? What is the calling behavior of males? Is there more information on the gliding ability? Is this a recent adaptation, or shared between multiple similar species?
Article could also use some more photos if possible. Especially would benefit from one of the frog gliding if you can find one. Lvanzen3 (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Peer Review Comments
editFirst of all, good job! Your post is super interesting, and I really enjoyed reading about your frog. I liked how there is a separate sub-section for “Differences between Rhacophorus kio and R. reinwardtii” that explains their differences. One suggestion is maybe you could add one or two pictures that show their morphological differences, maybe their difference in webbing. I think the Habitat section needs a revision. I had a hard time understanding the context of the sentence “R. kio have been observed at a height of 57m in southwest China” because it doesn’t seem to flow/match well with the previous sentences and the following sentences. In the previous sentences, it is mentioned that R. kio are found between elevations of 200m and 1800m, and “a height of 57m” is not within in the range. The following sentences mention the cover of the canopy and the top of the canopy, but whether “a height of 57m” refers to the top of the canopy, the cover of the canopy, or possibly neither of them, is uncertain based on how the Habitat section is currently written. It would be great if this confusion can be clarified through revision. Also, maybe you could elaborate on the specific species of insects and the examples of food sources found at the top of the canopy for additional details. For the Arboreal Locomotion section, I think the content is very interesting, and it would be great if you could elaborate more in this section. One suggestion is to add a picture of the frog’s hands or toe pads. Another suggestion is to expand on how their gliding works with more details. Turturenhydra (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)