Talk:Battle of the Frogs

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of the Frogs article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Battle of the Frogs has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 17, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Amphibians and Reptiles Mid‑importance

	Battle of the Frogs 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Connecticut Mid‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Folklore Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources[edit]

How do I source a book? Thank you for any help. Sea Captain Cormac 23:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

See Template:Cite book. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 09:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: Gobonobo (talk · contribs) 21:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 23:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

What an interesting article! I will review this soon. I grew up in Connecticut and simply couldn't pass this up. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
No issues with this criterion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
A few minor concerns I raised have been addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
References look good, apart from a minor error with the sole further reading entry, which includes a publication location but no publisher. Should be an easy fix for you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
I am satisfied with the reliability of the sources in the article and the density of inline citations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
Good, per spot checks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
The CTMQ source comes up, see [1], but the text in the article was written two years before the CTMQ article, so they plagiarized from Wikipedia. Nothing else comes up as a concern. Will evaluate in source checks but otherwise a pass. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
We have discussion of the event, its aftermath (including differences in various accounts), its legacy, and possible explanations for the phenomenon. I believe this checks all the boxes as far as broad coverage. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Not a concern. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Having given the article a read-through, I am satisfied this criterion is met. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Not an issue here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Everything is easily public domain apart from the frog bridge photo, which is under an appropriate license. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
I appreciate the effort put in to illustrate a difficult topic to portray with photos, since there obviously aren't any contemporaneous photos to be had. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I think this meets the criteria now. Congratulations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Be consistent, is mill pond two words or one? You use both in the first section.

Fixed. Going with mill pond.

What makes CTMQ a reliable source? From its about page, the author is very clear that Disclaimer: CTMQ is not, in any way, associated with any museums or other places discussed on this website. Nothing here is official, nothing is to be taken as gospel, and nothing should be used as your top resource for any museum, trail, restaurant, etc. I’m just one guy having some fun. This would appear to therefore fall under the category of a self-published source, putting its reliability into question. In any case, you should be able to substitute a reliable source for the material it is cited to.

I've pulled the CTMQ source.

Watch for instances of WP:WEASEL, such as According to some accounts.
Herpetologist should be linked to Herpetology as an uncommon word.

Linked.

police shoulder patches incorporate the town seal, which includes a frog in its design Wouldn't it be easier to just state that a frog is included in the town seal?

Reworded.

The one sentence in the first part of the legacy section about the frog bridge seems irrelevant, given it has its own subheading later within the same section.

Removed the sentence.

I will continue this review soon. Apologies for the longer than anticipated delay in getting it started. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Trainsandotherthings. No worries. I haven't done one of these in a long time. I appreciate your review. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 14:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

I checked references 3, 7, 13, 22, and 27. These were not randomly selected, but intentionally chosen as the references most used in the article.

Reference 3 (Lawyers and Bullfrogs), everything checks out. Pass.
Reference 7 (Nocturnal Sounds) is actually a guest post authored by Julianne Mangin, who should be credited as an author as well as Pad Padua.

I've switched the author to Mangin. It looks like it was merely posted by Padua, so I've removed their name.

Windham became the laughingstock of the colonies is a little too close to the source language of Windham became the laughing-stock of the colonies. I realize this is one sentence, but our rules on WP:CLOP are rather strict.

Not sure how to reword this, so I've added quotes.

The article mentions a song called "Good Old Windham Flip" but the song is not named in the reference.

I've added a reference to the piano score.

Other instances of this reference check out. Please address the items identified.

Reference 13 (The Frogs of Windham)

The claim about fabricated blue laws is not supported by this source. I remember seeing it in Lawyers and bullfrogs. Please check for text-source integrity and cite this claim to the proper source. Other instances of this source pass verification.

Added a reference.

Reference 22 (A Froggy Place in History)

Everything checks out here.

Reference 27 (Frog Notes of Windham), reference is dead and should be marked as such.

Done.

All good.

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.

Did you know nomination[edit]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Detail from banknote

... that the 1754 Battle of the Frogs was commemorated on banknotes (detail pictured)?

Source: The frog vignette appears on the $1, $2, $3, $5 and $10 notes in the lower right corner. The old notes reminded everyone that touched them about the then-famous battle of the frogs...

Piano score for the Frog Chorus

- ALT1: ... that an opera based on the Battle of the Frogs (piano score pictured) was compared to the fictional musical Springtime for Hitler? Source: Mr. Brouillard said that the operetta's story line is on the order of Springtime for Hitler, the musical in the Mel Brooks film, The Producers, that is so bad it is funny and becomes a Broadway hit.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara's Rhubarb Bar

Improved to Good Article status by Gobonobo (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 120 past nominations.

gobonobo ⁺ ^c 16:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]