Template:Did you know nominations/Chelidonura fulvipunctata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Chelidonura fulvipunctata[edit]

Chelidonura fulvipunctata
Chelidonura fulvipunctata

Created by Quetzal1964 (talk). Nominated by Snek01 (talk) at 13:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article is new enough and long enough. It is neutral and uses inline citations. I assume good faith for the offline sources. There do not seem to be copyright violations, but there may be some close paraphrasing in the description section. "expanded laterally into two symmetrical long parapodia" is the same as in the source. The article says that the original discovery site is a boat building locale, but the source cited says "Selimiye (type locality of C. mediterranea) a former traditional boat-builders’ village". C. mediterranea is a synonym of C. fulvipunctata, so the village does not seem to be the original discovery site of the species. The original discovery site seems to be in Japan. The QPQ is done. The image is freely licensed and used in the article. The hook is cited. But the source cited seems to be a reply to criticism of the hypothesis that C. fulvipunctata is an anti-Lessepsian migrant, so it appears that it is not very certain that the species is an anti-Lessepsian migrant. Gulumeemee (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi, the source cited is a response to a criticism of the hypothesis thet C. fulvepunctata is a anti-Lessepsian migrant but argues that as the species was confirmed as present in the Mediterranean 40 years before it was recorded in the Red Sea then the least parsimonious argument is that the animals present in the Red Sea originated in the Mediterranean. The article clearly says "the most likely source" and is not definitive, in line with the source. I have clarified the text around discovery in the Med. Quetzal1964 07:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I was not really talking about the article; I think the article is OK. I was saying that the hook seems too certain. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps this hook should be used. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that is more in line with what the article says and thank you, your comments on the ambiguity of my original wording re this species discovery in the Mediterranean were helpful. Quetzal1964 08:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg I rephrased the description and struck the original hook. The ALT1 hook is good to go. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)