Template:Did you know nominations/Lauridromia dehaani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Zanhe (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Lauridromia dehaani[edit]

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 08:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC).

  • Dibs on this one. Abyssal (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • New enough. Long enough. I think the description section is too closeley paraphrased and also a bit technical for non-specialists. Abyssal (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Abyssal: It is interesting that you should say there is close paraphrasing in the description section because Earwig gives the article a clean bill of health with a 0.0% confidence. However, I have rewritten one sentence, and I do not think erring slightly on the technical side is a bar to DYK. Of course I could leave out some of the details, which are mostly concerned I suppose with distinguishing this species from other similar ones, but that seems a pity. When describing organisms, there is a certain order in which the different characteristics are mentioned and I need to stick to that. If you want me to make further alterations, you could perhaps be more precise about sentences you don't like. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Long enough, created within seven days of nomination, no close paraphrasing issues, QPQ complete. The one issue is that the hook is unclear. I would tack a "for camouflage" on the end or something like that to make it more easy to understand what "wear sponge" means. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 13:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Well I don't mind having ALT1, but I prefer the original hook which I think is quite intriguing because you wonder what it's all about. I thought that hook would be good for the quirky spot in the hook set. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Article still good, with no policy issues identified, no issues with close paraphrasing that I can identify. I think the original hook is more interesting. but either are usable.--Kevmin § 15:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)