- 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 feminist (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 20:07, 21 February 2019 (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: 
VR talk 15:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- The source used says something different than the hook (and the article text). It says, "Pugettia gracilis had highest abundances at canopy sites" and "Abundance of P. gracilis was higher in canopy sites than understory". Please fix or explain.
- @Vice regent: Thank you for the review. At the bottom of page 66 of the source it states "Most canopy kelp structure is in the water column and not directly available to crabs." It then states "Pugettia gracilis was found primarily on the tops of understory macroalgae". I take that to mean that the canopy was beneficial to the crab, as protection from predators for example, but that the crab did not actually climb into the canopy. So "highest abundance" in canopy sites but not highest abundance in the canopy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- That appears to be a reasonable interpretation I'll assume you know what you are talking about. Pass!VR talk 03:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
VR talk 15:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)