Template:Did you know nominations/Leuroglossus stilbius


 * 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) 07:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Leuroglossus stilbius

 * ... that the California smoothtongue has a black pigment in its stomach lining which may help this small fish avoid being eaten?


 * ALT1: ... that the California smoothtongue has a black pigment in its stomach lining which may prevent bioluminescent prey this small fish has swallowed from revealing it to predators?
 * Reviewed: Sally Brampton

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 09:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough, meets core content policies. Hook cited to RS. GTG. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  20:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Reopened, see discussion at WT:DYK. Fram (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT2:... that the California smoothtongue has a black pigment in its stomach lining which may prevent bioluminescent prey it has swallowed from revealing its presence? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check ALT2 hook; striking previous ones due to issues raised at the abovelinked discussion. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg "the deep-sea smelt family Bathylagidae": Sorta redundant? (It feels like saying "the Swiss country Switzerland".) Anyway, the article meets the newness and length requirements, paraphrases the sources well, and the hook is accurate according to its reference. QPQ is valid. FishBase's database server just crapped out, so I'd recommend adding an archive link for that reference. 23W 00:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Would a new reviewer be necessary if it's just a matter of rewording the hook? Because "... a black pigment in its stomach lining that may conceal the presence of bioluminescent prey this fish has swallowed" flows a lot better. 23W 00:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 23W, your revision flows better, but it's saying something different: Cwmhiraeth's ALT2 is talking about the smoothtongue's presence not being revealed even though it swallowed a bioluminescent fish, while yours is talking about concealing the swallowed bioluminescent fish with no implication of it being a survival mechanism. I think the interest is that the pigment is (presumably) protecting the smoothtongue from discovery, as opposed to protecting the (already doomed) shining swallowed fish. (Given the change in emphasis, I think a new reviewer would be warranted for your proposed hook.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am happy with either. As Fram's original objection was that I had given a reason in the hook for the black pigment being in the stomach lining that was not actually present in the source, perhaps ALT3 is better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What is ALT3? Can someone provide the correct hook? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg ALT3: ... that the California smoothtongue has a black pigment in its stomach lining that may conceal the presence of bioluminescent prey this fish has swallowed?
 * I'm still confused as to which hook is better—I think that ALT3 is more accurate to its source while ALT2 is closer to the article's contents—but I'll leave that for the next reviewer to determine. . 23W 01:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

New enough etc. per User:Jakec. ALT3 seems best - accurate to the source and article, avoiding the issue of why the fish would not want to be seen. GTG. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)