Template:Did you know nominations/Du Toit's torrent 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 14:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Du Toit's torrent frog

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that only two people are known to have seen the Du Toit's torrent frog alive?

• Source: Ngwava, Jacob M; Barratt, Christopher D; Boakes, Elizabeth; Bwong, Beryl A; Channing, Alan; Couchman, Olivia; Lötters, Stefan; Malonza, Patrick K; Muchai, Vincent; Nguku, Julius K; Nyamache, Joash; Owen, Nisha; Wasonga, Victor; Loader, Simon P (2021-01-02). "Species-specific or assemblage-wide decline? The case of Arthroleptides dutoiti Loveridge, 1935 and the amphibian assemblage of Mount Elgon, Kenya". African Journal of Herpetology. 70 (1): 53–60. doi:10.1080/21564574.2021.1891977. ISSN 2156-4574.

• ALT1: ... that the Du Toit's torrent frog was last seen alive in 1962 and has been feared extinct? Source: Ngwava, Jacob M; Barratt, Christopher D; Boakes, Elizabeth; Bwong, Beryl A; Channing, Alan; Couchman, Olivia; Lötters, Stefan; Malonza, Patrick K; Muchai, Vincent; Nguku, Julius K; Nyamache, Joash; Owen, Nisha; Wasonga, Victor; Loader, Simon P (2021-01-02). "Species-specific or assemblage-wide decline? The case of Arthroleptides dutoiti Loveridge, 1935 and the amphibian assemblage of Mount Elgon, Kenya". African Journal of Herpetology. 70 (1): 53–60. doi:10.1080/21564574.2021.1891977. ISSN 2156-4574.
• Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Olmagon (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Olmagon (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC).

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

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: New enough (GA on 25 December); Long enough and within policy; Has adequate sourcing; Is neutral and free of plagiarism; No pictures used. Hooks are cited; The first hook is particularly interesting; No QPQ required. AmateurHi$torian (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Olmagon: I might be missing it since its such a large article, but does the first hook (ie. the fact that only two people have seen it alive) actually appear in the article? Never mind, it appears in the lead. This is good to go. AmateurHi$torian (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)