Talk:Corythomantis greeningi

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: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * C.greeningi.jared.2005.png

"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.-- Kev min  § 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.-- Kev  min  § 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? , 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)