# Talk:Ecnomiohyla rabborum

I really liked this article. Nominated it to GA. Tomer T (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll help out with the review process.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ecnomiohyla rabborum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Tomer T! I shall review this. I have read it and it seems a nice one. I see here are not many images, but that is not what only matters. I have got some comments here, you can work on these issues:

In the lead, you can add when this species was discovered and by whom. No need to write the names of all the members of the team, but add this detail. It is relevant for the lead.
In 'Description'
On the first fingers (look in 2nd paragraph) is incorrect. Make fingers singular.
On the first fingers, the tubercles on the tipmost joints are elliptical in shape; while on the second and third fingers, the tubercles below the finger joints (subarticular tubercles) are smaller than that on the fourth fingers. Sounds a bit confusing. Could you split this into two sentences so that the reader can easily understand?
In 'Ecology and Biology'-
They can also steer their trajectory during descent could you explain what 'trajectory' is?
Link 'territorial' (to Territory (animal))
The advertising calls of E. raborum males Should be two bs in raborum.
Now a formal review:

Is it reasonably well written?
a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
Awaiting your response.
b. complies with  MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Fix the issue in lead, and it is done!
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout: 

b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

c. no original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Though not much information is available, you have done your best.
b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
no edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Though images are scarce, there are enough for a good understanding. Well done!
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I will wait for your replies. You have really written it well. Contact me here or on my talkpage if you want to. Cheers!--Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Hi Sainsf. I have fixed the issues pointed out. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi again. I fixed a few more things, now some general comments left:
Avoid relinking, link each item once. Remove those double links.
Look for disambig links, using the tool in the toolbox on this page.
Once done with this, I shall promote this as GA. --Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
There are no disambiguation links on the article. I also usually follow the policy on WP:REPEATLINK in all my articles, which allows repitition of the lead links in the body of the article, i.e. once in the lead section and once in the body. They reappear because of the technical nature of the article which means the links are helpful in both cases, in the lead, for accessibility to the unfamiliar term; and in the body, which provides better context.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, we are done then. This article has got to be a GA. Cheers!--Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Great. Thank you very much for the review. :) -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Ecnomiohyla rabborum.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 10, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-11-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I think it's becoming clear that we need some sort of consensus on extinction status, as there are constant alterations, and inconsistencies between the taxobox and text, as well as between various sections of the text.  Currently, the status of the frog is that it is totally extinct in captivity and has not been detected in the wild in over a decade (and then only indirectly), thus is "probably extinct". The problem is that a) the IUCN's categorization lacks a "probably extinct" category, b) the last IUCN assessment was in September of 2009, possibly before the captive female died (I can't find a precise date for that event).  I completely understand the value of making the IUCN the default for taxoboxes, but in this case, we're left with a very confusing mix of content - the IUCN says "Critically Endangered" in the taxobox, but the first sentence flatly lists it as extinct, and most of the article is about the status of the frog, its apparent extinction, etc.  Obviously, we need to follow sources, but we should figure out how to make all of these consistent, and to reflect the general probability and view that it is, indeed, extinct. HCA (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should state it as "critically endangered," as per the IUCN's assessment (at least until they update its status to "extinct"), and then follow up with statements on how mounting evidence strongly suggests it is already extinct?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Possibly, my main concern with that is how much of the press surrounding this species, and consequent article content, has centered on the presumed extinction, often without qualifiers in the press.  I'm personally partial to "probably extinct", in spite of violating WP:WEASEL, as a way to thread the needle between the lack of confirmation by the IUCN and the fact that the odds of a different outcome are pretty minuscule.  Hopefully the next IUCN revision will introduce "probably extinct" as a category, but the sad state of affairs is that until then, we'll probably have to make this call on more WP pages. HCA (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
What do you think of my rewrite so far?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Definitely good, thanks! HCA (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi all,
I've noticed the article talks about the last remaining survivor of the species having dies, does this not make this species 'EW' or 'EX' within the Conservation Status? I notice there was talk in 2018 of reviewing the IUCN's status for the species, I am not an expert, but has this been done to confirm or improve this article?
Also, the header paragraphs mention, the species as "...is...", whereas lower down, it's "...was...", so which tense is correct? "Is" does seem to suggest to me the species is not yet extinct or extinct in the wild.
Many thanks
Textualism (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)