Template:Did you know nominations/Tasmanian Seamounts

Tasmanian Seamounts
Created/expanded by Resident Mario (talk). Self nom at 23:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ... that corals that live on the Tasmanian Seamounts are among the longest-living organisms on Earth?


 * Review'd.  Res  Mar 23:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I cannot find the hook claim in the cited ref. Otherwise the article is long enough and new enough. Plagiarism check turned up nothing. Changed "oldest living" to "longest–living" in the hook to avoid confusion with organisms that haven't evolved for a long time. --Pgallert (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, stony corals were never specifically mentioned. Here is the reference I meant, and I've edited it to make it vauger, as stony is not specifically mentioned.  Res  Mar 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My fault, sorry =)  Res  Mar 01:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Sorry to bother you again. Hook is now properly referenced, but the expression "among the oldest organisms on Earth" again reads to me as if they were present on the planet before most other species developed, not that they are extremely long-lived. I'm not native English, is it only me who reads that interpretation into the hook? --Pgallert (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Added living sorry, about that.  Res  Mar 17:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Longest-living"? Otherwise it makes no difference to what it was before. --Pgallert (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed, let's get this out the door already =)  Res  Mar 19:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Lol, agreed. --Pgallert (talk) 06:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing concerns. Examples: "24 to 43% of the invertebrate species were new to science, and that between 16 and 33% appeared to be restricted to the seamount environment" vs "Of the invertebrate species, 24 to 43% were new to science, and between 16 and 33% appeared to be restricted to the seamount environment"; "Many of these organisms are hundreds or even thousands of years old, and are among the longest-living organisms in the world" vs "Some of the flora and fauna are hundreds and possibly thousands of years old making them some of the  longest-lived animals on earth". Please check thoroughly for phrasing and sourcing issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, my fault, I offer my sincere apologies for the sloppy plagiarism check. I only sampled what appeared to be the main source in the version first submitted to DYK. Will look through it as soon as I can. --Pgallert (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh for the love of...I'll give you the first but the second sentence you mention is completely legitimate. Changed it a teeny bit, but given the sentence structure there are only so many ways to deliver the same message. I must say organisms or something similar because the source is not specific about what organisms it is, exactly, despite me having a pretty damn clear guess of what they meant. I must say "are hundreds or thousands of years old" because, hell, they're hundred or thousands of years old. I must say "among the longest-living organisms in the world" or something similar because they are exactly that. Among the logest-living organisms in the world/on Earth/in the ocean/of all benthic fauna.  Res  Mar 02:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Went over it with a Sharpie, now can I please stop returning to this page? It's becoming a chore.  Res  Mar 03:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Nikkimaria is right, if it cannot be said in any other way it must be quoted. Did that with the "thousands of years" phrase. Reworded a bit further, hope I haven't destroyed the meaning of it. Checked the HTML sources with the Duplication Detector and the Pdf sources manually (all of them) and believe that it is all fine now. --Pgallert (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)