Template:Did you know nominations/Echinus tylodes, Phormosoma placenta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination  The following is an archived discussion of Echinus tylodes, Phormosoma placenta '​s DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination's (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the DYK WikiProject's (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Echinus tylodes, Phormosoma placenta[edit]

Echinus tylodes

Created/expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nom at 19:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Are these organisms related other than being deep water echinoderms? To me, this is original research, like saying "did you know that while whalefish swim fast tuna swim much faster?" The two creatures are very distantly related, and you've brought them together without explanation. Also, you should cite Kroh from World Echinoidea Database, rather than WORMS; they're both database aggregations. Trinomials are abbreviated with periods after both the genus and species according to ICZN. --BarbBarbBarb (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The suggestions you make above have been attended to. As to the hook bringing together two distantly related sea urchins united primarily by their deep water habitat, I think that is permissible for DYK. I can split the nomination into two if required. What do others think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • To me it sounds like you're saying, "did you know that while waterbirds like ducks have short legs, flamingos have long legs?" It's a so what? Did you know that two things that are different are different? I think your technical descriptions are off, also. You might try more recent review articles and a general invertebrate anatomy text instead of parroting the older descriptions. Kroh might have published some reviews, and they would be useful (not the database, the actual papers). I think this needs help from an echinoderm person, and I'm not. --BarbBarbBarb (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote4.png Needs a second opinion on the issue as to whether these two articles should be grouped in one hook, or split into two separate articles hooks, and any other issues brought up in initial review. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with BarbBarbBarb's comments (as a layman, not an echinoderm person) and I think you could make a couple of interesting hooks from this, along the lines of the following. Prioryman (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I will be happy to go along with your suggestion but am unsure what action I need to take to split the nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
That's easy enough. I can close this nomination with a Symbol delete vote.svg, and you can start two new nominations based on this one. Let me know when you're ready for them to be reviewed. Prioryman (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg No. Don't close it. If you close this one, then you lose the fact that the articles were nominated on time: the new nominations will be treated as late. Instead, use those two new hooks above as the basis of two separate hooks—we've split dual nominations before—and have each one approved separately. When the first one is promoted, the promoter leaves the second one behind to be promoted later, and the nomination is finally closed once both have been promoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Won't that screw up the DYKmake template, though? Prioryman (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It hasn't in the past. When the person promotes the one article, only the relevant DYKmake is added to the prep area, and the other waits for its article to be promoted. Both of the DYKmakes point to their individual article and to this template. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, fair enough. Cwmhiraeth, are you happy with that? Prioryman (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That's fine by me. I have struck out the original hook for clarity. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've just separated the two article hooks, so each can be reviewed and/or promoted individually. Since both hooks were suggested by Prioryman, that means we need a new reviewer now. I'll put a note in the current WT:DYK post about old unreviewed hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote4.png First Article: Echinus tylodes

Echinus tylodes

Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go. Length, date, refs check out. No text issues that I could see. Hook is cited and fact appears in the source. Go go go! Moswento talky 11:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


Symbol redirect vote4.png Second Article: Phormosoma placenta
Pictogram voting keep.svg Everything is good with this article too. No text issues. Referencing looks good. Can't access hook source, so AGF. Moswento talky 11:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)