Template:Did you know nominations/Pseudophilautus hypomelas

The following discussion 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 Victuallers (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Pseudophilautus hypomelas

(

)

... that Pseudophilautus hypomelas (pictured), a small shrub frog not seen for more than 130 years and believed to be extinct, was rediscovered in the Peak Wilderness of Sri Lanka?

Reviewed: Poultry

5x expanded by Micromesistius (talk). Self nominated at 21:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC).

5x expand confirmed. Each paragraph contains inline citation. QPQ also done but not satisfied that the job was well done based on issues noted by another reviewer after a green tick of approval was given. Very interesting hook that is short enough and verifiable with inline citations. Would include an inline citation at the end of this statement "However, in a survey in 2010 about 40..." as it's an important part of the hook. A few instances of close paraphrasing need to be fixed: Article - 2010 about 40 frogs resembling pseudophilautus hypomelas were / Source - 2010 about 40 frogs resembling pseudophilautus hypomelas were". Article - "the habitat is under severe anthropogenic "/ source - "the habitat is under severe anthropogenic". Also "found in a protected area" / "had been lost for". Article tone good. Image was uploaded under a Attribution 3.0 Unported license. However image bears a copyright stamp so unwise to feature in the DYK. EagerToddler39 (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the sloppy review, I did not expect that I have to go in that level of checking. Is there a tool for that? I have added citations as suggested and paraphrased the highlighted sentences (but not "had been lost for" - it is a coincidence that these exact words are used in the Mongabay article, in a slightly different context). The other image on the page could also be used, if an image is desired.Micromesistius (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, considerable detail is required when reviewing DYKs. Especially checks for "close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism". We don't want to put illegal content on Wikipedia's front page. It is a tedious process to check for duplication in articles. Most of us use this duplication detection tool. You will need to enter the bare url for the article you're reviewing into one of the boxes and then individual enter any url used in the article and scan each one separately for issues. Each scan takes just a few seconds but for lengthy articles this could mean a significant amount of time with multiple refs to check. For documents such as pdf you may have to read those directly and scan for any evidence of duplication. Sometimes just a spot check of a few sources is enough to determine if there are any issues. I notice that the QPQ is still awaiting final review so you could go back in and finish the job. This is not required for approval, however, as you have less than 5 DYK credits. We still appreciate your help clearing the backlog. Your article is currently free of close paraphrasing issues and gets my tick of approval.

Article satisfies all criteria. OK for original hook without the image. EagerToddler39 (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)