Template:Did you know nominations/Goliathus orientalis
- 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 Miyagawa (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Goliathus orientalis
edit... that in captivity, the larvae of the beetle Goliathus regius (pictured) and G. orientalis can be fed on commercial dog or cat food?
- Reviewed: Star Trek: The God Thing and Didemnum vexillum
5x expanded by Hectonichus (talk). Nominated by Rcej (talk) at 15:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC).
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hectonichus; Rcej Goliathus regius: Article became a non-redirect on January 17, 2015 by Hectonichus; 1730 B; no copyvio. Hook is not cited by inline citation.- Goliathus orientalis: Corrected link in hook. Article became a non-redirect on January 16, 2015 by Hectonichus. no copyvio. 1756 B. Hook is not cited by inline citation.--Redtigerxyz Talk 07:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The article Goliathus orientalis is acceptable for DYK, being new enough and long enough, neutral and without copyvios. I found the fact in the hook by going to page 3 of the source. Goliathus regius is not acceptable for DYK because it is largely identical to the other article and if you discounted the duplicated material it would be much too short. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- How about this:
- ALT1: ... that in captivity, the larvae of the beetle Goliathus orientalis (pictured) can be fed on commercial dog or cat food? -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The single article now nominated is new enough and long enough. The ALT1 hook has an inline citation (page 3 of the source) and the image is appropriately licensed. The article is neutral and I detected no close paraphrasing. Good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
