- 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 Yoninah (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- ... that the coral Pocillopora elegans is considered "vulnerable" after being severely depleted in the eastern Pacific during the 1982-1983 El Niño event? Source: "In the Galápagos Islands, pocilloporid communities were well developed off northeastern San Cristobal, Espanola and Floreana Island until the 1980s, but disappeared following the 1982-83 ENSO event, with minimal coral recruitment since"
Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 12:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: 
The article is new enough, long enough (>1800 characters of prose), neutral, and well supported by respectable sources, without any plagiarism or excessively close paraphrasing that I can see. The proposed hook is fairly interesting and is directly supported by a source cited in the article. A very tidy species article, and a solid contribution to the encyclopedia! Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this, but I do not see the connection between the ENSO event and its being rated "vulnerable" in the source. The source only says that the Galapagos population was depleted as a result of the ENSO event. Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the source has a lot to say on the subject - "high rates of pocilloporid coral mortality across the eastern Pacific following the 1982/83 El Niño". The "vulnerable" rating is the IUCN's assessment of the species' future as a result of this and other factors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- OK. Restoring tick per Bryanrutherford0's review. Yoninah (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The article is new enough, long enough (>1800 characters of prose), neutral, and well supported by respectable sources, without any plagiarism or excessively close paraphrasing that I can see. The proposed hook is fairly interesting and is directly supported by a source cited in the article. A very tidy species article, and a solid contribution to the encyclopedia! Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
