Template:Did you know nominations/Monacanthus ciliatus
- 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 Rcsprinter123 (spout) @ 11:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Monacanthus ciliatus, Monacanthus chinensis
edit( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that the fringed filefish (pictured) and the fan-bellied leatherjacket both have dewlaps?
- Reviewed: Don Terry, Café Montmartre
Created/expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 07:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC).
- Review for Monacanthus ciliatus: Nominated for DYK four days after creation, and is almost 2500 bytes, satisfying date and length criteria. Commons image File:Monacanthus ciliatus - pone.0010676.g193.png was obtained from Figure 193 (of this document), is licenced as Creative Commons public domain, and adequately represents the subject at the scale needed by DYK. Article is sufficiently sourced, and satisfies DYK criteria. This article is good to go. Mindmatrix 19:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Review for Monacanthus chinensis: Expanded from 350 bytes of text to just under 2100 bytes of text starting three days before DYK nomination, satisfying date and length criteria. Although not required for DYK, the sentence fragment "at depths down to" sounds awkward to me; perhaps it can be replaced with "to depths of" or some such? The "TL" link in the intro could be moved by replacing the preceding 'length' with 'total length', and piping a link for that text to fish measurement. Sourcing is OK, and no close paraphrasing detected. The only issue with this article is the statement "it is of minor importance to local commercial fisheries", for which I found no citations. (The remainder of the intro is OK, as it summarizes the article.) Once this minor glitch is corrected, this will be good to go. Mindmatrix 19:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Overall review: Image OK, per first part of review. QPQ completed by reviewing the double DYK nomination listed above. Once the minor issue with the second article is resolved, this will be good to go. Mindmatrix 19:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reviews, I have made the alterations you suggested. Apart from the depth phraseology, they were historic statements, present in the stub before I expanded it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
