Talk:Hynobius abuensis

Hynobius abuensis was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 12, 2025, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 10 April 2025 by reviewer Ktkvtsh (talk · contribs).

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Hynobius abuensis is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Japan: Flora and fauna Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 23:55, April 19, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Flora and fauna task force.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: None
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

GA review

Unsuccessful. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 00:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hynobius abuensis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TheGrandGarchomp (talk · contribs) 13:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Sophisticatedevening (talk · contribs) 23:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and content

This is a very short new article, with minimal detail given within the three sections. I'm inclined to WP:QF as the sections only contain 2-3 sentences each, which does not adequately go into depth to describe it. I will say all spelling/grammar is good, however the lack of content is just too great to ignore.

Sourcing

I'm gonna go through all sources as only three are presented.

ICUN is a good, solid reliable source. It is only used for the endangered status, which is totally fine as it supports the status in the article.
This source (bioone.org) seems to be a host for academic papers, which is fine but I can't see any proof that is was vetted by a third party peer review. It was published in 2019 so date is fine there. However, the paper is a report on findings, making it a primary source, so I'm a little wary as this is used for the vast majority of the footnotes.
Where does it say in here anything about a lungless related genus? It is just a taxonomy database, so I'm not really sure where that came from, leading me to believe this was WP:OR.

Image

The file is used under a claim CC by 4.0, however their is no publisher website specified to verify whether or not this is actually commons.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: As there is no publisher's website or information specified, I cannot verify whether this license is valid.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Due to the extreme issues concerning content depth, possible WP:OR and the unclear license of the image, I am going to Fail this nomination.
This is a good start for an article, however this is a long way away from meeting all of the GA criteria. Please don't be discouraged by this, and continue working on it to meet it in the future. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 00:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.