Template:Did you know nominations/Panagrolaimus detritophagus, Plectus parvus


 * 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 Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Panagrolaimus detritophagus, Plectus parvus

 * ... that the tiny worms Panagrolaimus detritophagus and Plectus parvus were revived after more than 30 thousand years frozen in permafrost? Source: "The viable soil nematodes Panagrolaimus aff. detritophagus (Rhabditida) and Plectus aff. parvus (Plectida) were isolated from the samples of Pleistocene permafrost deposits of the Kolyma River Lowland. The duration of natural cryopreservation of the nematodes corresponds to the age of the deposits, 30 000–40 000 years."
 * ALT1:... that the tiny nematodes Panagrolaimus detritophagus and Plectus parvus were revived after more than 30 thousand years frozen in permafrost? Source: "The viable soil nematodes Panagrolaimus aff. detritophagus (Rhabditida) and Plectus aff. parvus (Plectida) were isolated from the samples of Pleistocene permafrost deposits of the Kolyma River Lowland. The duration of natural cryopreservation of the nematodes corresponds to the age of the deposits, 30 000–40 000 years."
 * ALT2: ... that the tiny nematode worm Panagrolaimus detritophagus was revived after more than 30 thousand years frozen in permafrost? Source: "The viable soil nematodes Panagrolaimus aff. detritophagus (Rhabditida) and Plectus aff. parvus (Plectida) were isolated from the samples of Pleistocene permafrost deposits of the Kolyma River Lowland. The duration of natural cryopreservation of the nematodes corresponds to the age of the deposits, 30 000–40 000 years."
 * Comment: I currently have 2 DYK credits so QPQ not required
 * Comment: I currently have 2 DYK credits so QPQ not required

Created by HighFlyingFish (talk). Self-nominated at 02:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg These two articles are new enough and Panagrolaimus detritophagus is long enough, but the other article is too short, having a page size of 975 B when 1500 B is required. This means you have two options, either to expand the second article with original prose (not text copied from the other article) to at least 1500 B, or abandon the second article and make this a single article hook. The other DYK criteria of neutrality and freedom from copyright concerns are met. It is best to put the citation, such as ref 4 in Plectus parvus, at the end of the paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

So I've been really busy as of late, so I'm taking the cowards way out, and I'm going to make it a single-article hook. See ALT2 for my idea in that regard. --HighFlyingFish (talk)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg It seemed a pity to disallow the second article so I have added some more information to it and it is now long enough and I have struck ALT2. Either of the hooks covering both articles can be used, and this nomination is good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I have pulled this from the queue as (a) the references contain bare urls, and (b) the references are missing some data fields. Gatoclass (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither of these articles contains "bare urls", but they do contain citations formatted in an unusual way. Rule D3 states that "References in the article must not be bare URLs (e.g., http://example.com or )." The rule does not mention anything about "missing data fields". The present citations conform to rule D3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. Just format them the usual way.  You can even use a tool to do that if you don't know how to do it manually.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See also WP:PLRT. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems that has formatted the references appropriately now (for which I'm adding him to the credits)., are you okay with this nomination now? Gatoclass (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks much better, something we could actually put on the main page. No further objections (although the dead link could be fixed...) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I am confused by one of the edits made to the references of Plectus parvus. I've explained my confusion on the talk page. Please explain why the change was made and what's going on with the deadlink label? --HighFlyingFish (talk)
 * I restored that reference to its original form so there shouldn't be any bare URLs anymore. --HighFlyingFish (talk)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to finish this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Tiny issue before it is passed, but here is the review: Articles are long/new enough, neutral, property cited, hooks are interesting/cited, no copyright violations, articles are stable, and within policy. No QPQ needed. I added a "Citation needed" tag to Plectus parvus because Source #6 did not cover the statement, from what I checked. Please add this and ping me when it is done. Nice job overall. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 14:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg As I was copyediting the article, I saw that the hook was cited by Source #5, which was cited earlier. I moved the ref to back up the entire statement. Good to go now. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 14:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)