Talk:Corythomantis greeningi

Did you know nomination

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: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Greening's frog retreats into a hole, blocks the entrance with its spiny head and injects venom into anything that tries to dislodge it? Source: "A Brazilian scientist has made the painful, first-hand discovery of the first frog capable of injecting a toxic venom into potential predators. Carlos Jared, a researcher at Instituto Butantan in Sao Paolo, was collecting frogs in a forest Goytacazes National Reserve in southeastern Brazil when one of them head-butted him, jabbing its spines into his hand. That caused "intense pain radiating up the arm, lasting about five hours,"

• Reviewed: Prejudice (1949 film)

5x expanded by Hanberke (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). Nominated by Cwmhiraeth (talk) at 08:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC).

* Starting review. The first question I have is whether the article image is licenced correctly. The commons upload lists cc-by SA-4.0, however the article page doesnt specify a licence, and the original publication date of the article precedes creative commons 4.0 licencing.--Kevmin § 00:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Image in question has been deleted as a copyright violation. none of the sources in the article seem to support "Greening's frog" as a viable widely used name in more common use then the binomial.--Kevmin § 20:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Kevmin: I have added a reference for the common name. I like to use the common name in the hook as it is more accessible to the general reader. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is that "Greening's frog" is in very little use while "Greening's frog" is the most often used. We shouldn't be promoting a rare vernacular name that isn't used over the most commonly used name.--Kevmin § 19:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth:, this is still an outstanding issue with the hook and article.--Kevmin § 18:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kevmin: Well, I couldn't really understand your previous comment, but I don't mind using ALT1 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that the frog Corythomantis greeningi retreats into a hole, blocks the entrance with its spiny head and injects venom into anything that tries to dislodge it?

• Oh damn, my bad, I didnt even realise I mess up the prior comment! that should have been "The problem is that "Greening's frog" is in very little use while "Corythomantis greeningi" is the most often used.
• With the updated hook everyting looks good to go. Article expansion new enough, and long enough. paragraphs are cited, sources are neutral. No policy issues identified, no copyvio issues seen. Alt 1 looks good to go. --19:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• C.greeningi.jared.2005.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"Greening's frog"

Do we have any citations that "Greening's frog" is in any sort of regular use? If its not then the article text should be using Corythomantis greeningi as that is by far the more common name.--Kevmin § 15:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It's from Frank & Ramus and is listed at Amphibian Species of the World. But species not found in English speaking countries generally don't have commonly used English vernacular names. Scientific name should be used throughout the text here. Plantdrew (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed we should be using the binomial, as that is the much more widely used name. I asked just to be sure i hadn't missed something in my examination of the sourcing.--Kevmin § 19:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Why DYK reviews miss so much?

This article and its 'review' is a good illustration of how badly DYK reviewing functions. Edit of 19:56, 8 June 2020 added "The photograph above shows a female frog using a test-tube for a retreat, sealing off the aperture with its head." What photo? Ne'er was a photo here. Yet the review starting after that never noticed the non sequitur? @Cwmhiraeth:, @SL93: and at least two others didn't read the text? huh?

DYK is my favorite section. But I keep finding non-sensical oddities, e.g. Who was that masked man?, after just a little actual reading of the articles. This article is also an example of that. What photo? What review? Shenme (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Shenme: Thank you for pointing this out, but actually you are wrong to criticize the DYK review process, which in this instance was rather thorough. Look at the history of the article and you will see that the photograph was added in October 2019‎, and was already in the article when I started expanding it on the 8th June this year. In the diff you linked above I merely referred to the image in the text. During the review by Kevmin, it was determined that the image, which was from a research study, was not suitably licensed and it was removed. At that stage, I did not remember that I had specifically mentioned it in the text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: With at least three other people discussing the article, 'thoroughly' as you said, why must it depend on your memory? They presumably read the article even after you added text referring to the picture. The DYK was approved a month after you added that text. I don't think a thorough tumult over a technical matter should so engross the reviewers that they forget to review the text - the article - as it will be presented to the readers. They were so engaged with the chrome that they forgot to check the auto engine? That's why I say the review failed. The article suggested to the reader had problems that should have been recognized. (Did you check that linked conversation?) Shenme (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)