Template:Did you know nominations/Paratropis tuxtlensis

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 97198 (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Paratropis tuxtlensis

edit

Paratropis tuxtlensis

Created by G S Palmer (talk). Self nominated at 23:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC).

  • A nice contribution by a first-time DYK participant (no QPQ needed). New enough, long enough, no evidence of close paraphrasing or copyvio, and adequately sourced (note: I inserted some additional footnotes so there would be at least one footnote in each paragraph, after ascertaining that the information came from the ZooKeys source). Great image for DYK; it's used in the article and is appropriately licensed.
I have just one concern regarding the hook fact. Except for the least reliable source here (i.e., the news blurb in Science, Space & Robots), the sources do not definitively state that the dirt is for camouflage. Rather, that is stated as a surmise or a possibility (e.g., "possibly as a defense mechanism because the soil particles encrusted on the body cuticle serves as camouflage", "could ... serve as camouflage"). Accordingly, the article and hook should be revised to indicate that this is a supposition. For the hook, I suggest something like this:
  • That works: for the article, I could change the wording to something like this: "It is surmised/theorized that this serves as a form of camouflage to conceal it from both predators and prey." Thoughts? G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 20:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think it needs to be that complicated. Something like "This could be a form of camouflage to conceal it from both predators and prey" should suffice. --Orlady (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed to check ALT2. Have struck original hook and ALT1 due to issues raised above. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    I agree with Orlady that the DYK criteria are met by this article. I had no plagiarism concerns, the image is appropriately licensed and the ALT2 hook is cited with an inline citation. Nice work. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)