Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese tree frog

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 RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Japanese tree frog

(

)

... that calling patterns of the Japanese tree frog have been used to further develop wireless network design, furthering an area of science called swarm intelligence? Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120717100123.htm
- Reviewed:

5x expanded by ShawnMohammed (talk). Self-nominated at 17:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC).

Reviewing... –LordPeterII (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: - some uncited sentences at the end of paragraphs
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - not the last part about "swarm intelligence" (because that sentence is uncited in the article)
Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Several sentences at the end of paragraphs remain uncited, for example "H. japonica has a dark vocal sac." and "This is due to the necessity of the frog life cycle for both water and land." I could find no other issues; so if those were solved @ShawnMohammed, I can pass the nom. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

LordPeterII It looks like it might have been taken care of. I will add fixing the citation overkill as a suggestion to the nominator, but that shouldn't stop promotion. SL93 (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

A new reviewer is needed. The original reviewer is on a wikibreak. SL93 (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment - It's been sitting in the queue long enough, I'll take a crack at reviewing it. - Aoidh (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems:

QPQ: None required.

Overall:

This source verifies the hook and is cited at the appropriate place in the article, so no concerns there. Article was 1695 characters of prose before expansing and was 11,233 when it was nominated on October 26, more than a 5x expansion of prose. According to QPQ check this is the nom's first nomination, so no QPQ required. Earwig only caught one little phrase that seems to fall under WP:LIMITED. In my opinion the hook is very interesting, so it appears good to go. Well done, certainly more interesting than my first DYK! - Aoidh (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)