Template:Did you know nominations/Koller's sickle
- The following discussion 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) 22:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Koller's sickle
edit( )
- ... that Koller's sickle is a local thickening of cells at the posterior edge of the area pellucida in avian gastrulation?
5x expanded by Blairwal (talk), Allielew00 (talk). Nominated by Blairwal (talk) at 01:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC).
Length and date verified (4847 characters, Updated >5X on 11/02). Stub template removed. Hook is implied in the article but not clearly stated in the article with an immediate in-line citation. Please consider choosing another hook or edit the article. The references look good but could use a few more from the list of references on the Talk page from this editor. Since ref 2 and 3 are both article freely available online, please consider add links to the articles in the citations. First nomination, no QPQ needed. ChemLibrarian (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
There have been subsequent edits to the article: I suggest that the reviewer check both the hook issue and the sourcing issue, and also do a close paraphrasing check, since so many sources are available online. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Is it possible to find other interesting facts in the article that can be incorporated into this hook? APerson (talk!) 20:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Would this be any good? - ALT1 ... that Koller's sickle is also Rauber's sickle? --Bcp67 (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- ChemLibrarian, what else needs to be done to finalize this nomination? -- Jreferee (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Subject to any significant points from @ChemLibrarian as per @Refereee's suggestion then I think ALT1 is fine and is well cited. The discussion on the talk page of this article should convince any doubters of the good regard for this article and the +ve suggestions that are offered. I couldn't see any close paraphrasing. GTG Victuallers (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
