The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The first section is called Systematics. I believe that this is the same as that which is called Taxonomy in other articles. Consider whether the differences are sufficient for a different title.
Changed.
The image in the infobox has no title as there is no other information in the Wikimedia entry.
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
Suggest clarifying "Appendix I of CITES" in the lead.
Linked instead.
Suggest explaining some of the more specialised terms like tympanum in the body.
Glossed tympanum, I don't a gloss for omosternum (anterior part of the sternum) would be any more edifying than what's already there.
Add appropriate verbs for agreement to "adding the species to Appendix I of CITES, establishing ex situ populations, additional research on threats and distribution, and better regulation of trade of the species."
Attempted.
"Please check through instances where the species is given as plural. For example "O. solanensis have a dark black background color" and "O. solanensis have many spots" should read "…has…".
Pluralizing the species name, cf "Moose have a dark background color...". The species itself doesn't have colors, individuals of the species do.
That makes sense. I suggest the phrase "examples of O. solanensis have a dark black background color" would be clearer, but I feel that is likely a personal preference.
Consider "It may occur south to the western San Juan River" Should it read "…south of the western San Juan River".
No, south to is correct, it means that the southern limit of the distribution is the western Rio San Juan.
Consider a comma before "and" in "Populations of the species are very dense and entire subpopulations are vulnerable to being wiped out by a single threat".
Done.
Consider "The species has not been recorded from any protected areas". I believe it should read "…recorded in any protected areas".
Done.
I believe "regulation of trade" should read "regulation of the trade".
Done.
I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
A reference section is included, with sources listed. It would be easier to use with a separate section listing the pages, but this is not a GA criteria.
all inline citations are from reliable sources;
Spot checks confirm the two Frost 2023 sources and Posso-Terranova & Andrés 2018 cover the topic.
A cursory scan of Google Scholar identifies a number of articles on the species, including Gómez-Consuegra & Amézquita 2024[[1]], Medina, Wang, & Amézquita 2013[[2]] and Vargas-Salinas & Amézquita, 2013[[3]]. These, and others, could be useful resources for more information.
Latter two were published before the species was described and don't mention it afaics, the first also doesn't mention solanensis.
That seems reasonable. Either a problem with the algorithm or my search terms.
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
The article seems generally balanced and covers issues like the illegal trade in the frog dispassionately.
It is stable.
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
There is no evidence of edit wars.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
The images have appropriate CC tags. All are reviewed apart from Oophaga solanensis 126955852 (cropped).jpg that is extracted from Oophaga solanensis 126955852.jpg. The latter is also reviewed.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.