- 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 Yoninah (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Boophis popi
- ... that the skeleton frog Boophis popi can be identified by its bright red irises? Source:"It is characterized by its red irises and distinctly elevated reticulations on the dorsum." and "B. popi has distinct red outer irises, beige inner irises (with a brown vessel-like pattern) surrounded by a black ring, with blue in the iris periphery."
- ALT1:... that the nocturnal Boophis popi can be identified by its bright multicolored eyes?
- Comment: It would be fun if this article was on the main page closer to or on Halloween.
Created by Starsandwhales (talk). Self-nominated at 22:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC).
Solid article on few but good sources, no copyvio obvious. I don't see why 1 and 2 seem to be the same reference, and not mentioning this species. Both hooks are fine, but I'd think that being described as late as 2011 would also be worth mentioning. Well, Halloween ;) - the original is better for that purpose. - In the article, consider to copy all facts from the lead to the body, and then do a few things to the lead: remove the references there, remove the link to the company, and expand by more summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: I fixed the citation issue. VE's automatic citation tool links to the IUCN's database rather than the specific page on the species, and speciesbox doesn't like to use the same citations as the rest of the article. I removed citations in the lead. I also removed the link to the company. Since there is only one up to date paper on this species, there isn't much that can be added to the lead. 21:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, helpful! Original hook preferred if for Halloween, otherwise ALT1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: I fixed the citation issue. VE's automatic citation tool links to the IUCN's database rather than the specific page on the species, and speciesbox doesn't like to use the same citations as the rest of the article. I removed citations in the lead. I also removed the link to the company. Since there is only one up to date paper on this species, there isn't much that can be added to the lead. 21:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
