Template:Did you know nominations/Cream-spotted cardinalfish

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ozichthys albimaculosus

Created/expanded by Gaff (talk). Self nominated at 21:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC).

  • Began review, new enough, long enough. AshLin (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Info clumped up, seperated it into sections, makes it more readable.  Done.
  • Template:Ping Hook just not interesting enough - there are many monotypic genera. Please suggest alternatives not invoving monotypic genus status.
  • Please use Template:Convert for depth range to show depth both in feet and meters. Done
  • The superfluous words "Ref Ref. 90102" & "TL male/unsexed" shows sloppy cut & paste from Fishbase. Please be careful, it also implies that copyvio/close paraphrasing issues may exist. AshLin (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Done
    • Yes, besides the two copyvios, there are close paraphrasing issues also - " a single pore above and below the raised median canal on each pored lateral line scale", please rephrase this. Done
    • "color patterns present on the head body and vertical fins and"
    • "apogonichthys foa fowleria and neamia"
  • Please reconcile these & ping me or place a message on my talk page. AshLin (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Template:Ping Thank you for the review. Copyvio/close paraphrasing concerns have (hopefully) been adequately addressed. Sadly, your concerns about the hook not being of interest may prove insurmountable, in which case, I'll abandon this as a candidate. To a lay reader such as myself (physician by trade), a new genus of fish being described this year (2 months ago) seems interesting enough. (At least as, if not more, interesting than 2 out of 5 DYK noms.)[citation needed] But, I'm happy to work with you... How about these? One emphasizes the timeliness of the entry, another notes some interesting features of the fish, and one does both:

I recommend a mish-mash of of the above, composed from two seperate sentences in the text & duly referenced inline.

Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go

AshLin (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)