Template:Did you know nominations/Belonogaster petiolata
- 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) 03:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Belonogaster petiolata
[edit]- ... that the queen wasp Belonogaster petiolata inspects her nest to ensure the eggs are hers, and eats any not laid by her?
- Comment: A new editor did a great job and deserves recognition and wikilove
Created by Probertsg (talk). Nominated by Oiyarbepsy (talk) at 05:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC).
- Oppose May be OK on content, but the editor doesn't understand formatting. Only bolding should be first occurrence of article name, there are multiple repeated refs, even though I've refnamed a few, no wikilinks other than one put in by me, headings incorrectly capitalised, no categories Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Needs complete review in accordance with DYK review instructions please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed.
Details that are supposed to be checked in a review can be found at DYKReviewing guide. This is a new editor and should be given a chance to make corrections. Also, the nominator should have been notified on their talk page. That not having been done, I'm placing a notice on their talk page. This is not a FA process where a nomination gets voted on. It's a review process, whereby the nominator is given a chance to make corrections, and anyone can suggest different hooks. It either "passes" or "fails", but that is based on the criteria linked above. The only formatting issue mentioned in the criteria is how the hook itself is formatted. — Maile (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- I read the comment above and I assume that I do not need to do anything. It clearly is a request for a third-party to review this article, right? That was a rather long post that doesn't really give anyone clear instruction about anything. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Full review needed. Oiyarbepsy, you do not need to do anything until a full review is done. The above is merely stating that the "oppose" comment is not a review. Reviewers have criteria to follow, and the seasoned reviewers know what that is. If not, the links take them to the list of criteria. Repeat...full review still needed. — Maile (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- I read the comment above and I assume that I do not need to do anything. It clearly is a request for a third-party to review this article, right? That was a rather long post that doesn't really give anyone clear instruction about anything. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
This article is being worked on as a class assignment and I see it has evolved quite a bit since Jimfbleak first looked at it. The article is new enough and long enough to qualify for DYK. The hook has an inline citation to a source that is not online, so I am unable to check the source and as a result I accept that the fact is correct. I have slightly altered the wording of the hook. The article is written in a neutral way but I am unable to check whether it includes any plagiarism or close paraphrasing because none of the sources is available to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
