Template:Did you know nominations/Pelanechinus

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 BlueMoonset (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Pelanechinus

edit

Created/expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nom at 09:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Article is new enough (Dec. 9) and long enough (2373 chars), and AFAICT is free of policy issues, but does not contain an inline citation for the suggested hook. In fact, it doesn't seem to contain the hook fact per se at all -- only as an attribute of two individual species in the genus, rather than of the genus as a whole. If all species in the genus did in fact share this property, that should be stated & cited. (Hook seems OK to me otherwise.) -- Visviva (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the first article I have written about an extinct genus and have found there are certain difficulties involved. At the time that the book was written, the species P. corallina was the only member of the genus and therefore the hook is accurate and cited. In fact, the unfused plates are not specific to this genus but are present in the whole order Echinothurioida, one of the characteristics of which is a flexible test. Perhaps it would be better to use the less interesting ALT1 hook which is cited by the Seposki reference, or ALT2 would get round the problem. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Needs re-review based on new ALT hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems good to go. I prefer ALT2. AGF on the source; I could check, but academic journal access is down for me at the moment. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)