Template:Did you know nominations/Telmatobius ventriflavum


 * 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 97198 (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Telmatobius ventriflavum

 * ... that Telmatobius ventriflavum (pictured) wasn't discovered until 2015 despite being located near a major highway?
 * ALT1:... that the newly discovered Telmatobius ventriflavum (pictured) is threatened by chytridiomycosis?
 * Reviewed: Toxolabis

Created by G S Palmer (talk). Self nominated at 02:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg I love frogs! (I have an African clawed frog as a pet). I checked the source and it does say how it was unusual for this species of frog to not be detected because the area was researched before. I prefer the first DYK hook as it is more interesting. Length of article looks fine, no disambigs, and citations are properly formatted. Good to go, jona   (talk)   21:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The review here is not complete: there has been no check of the images (which must be both in the article and have free licensing), and there has been no check for the "within policy" criteria including close paraphrasing and neutrality. These must all be checked. (Was newness checked? Is the QPQ okay? The review doesn't say.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The images are free to use and are appropriate for their size. The article was created on February 4, 2015 and the nomination for the article was opened two days later on the 6 of February, which is fine. The article has a decent size of readable prose and is not a stub. I would suggest that the reference section be fixed as there are only three sources in the article. There are no CP and neutrality issues in regards to the article. I don't see any copy-vio or plagiarism with the article, the hook is interesting (again I prefer the first one mentioned), and the format of the hook checks out great. Let me know if there are any other issues with this review, jona   (talk)   23:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)