Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Cream-spotted cardinalfish"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>AshLin
(comments)
imported>Gaff
(reply)
Line 32: Line 32:
 
:* Please reconcile these & ping me or place a message on my talk page. [[User:AshLin|AshLin]] ([[User talk:AshLin|talk]]) 14:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 
:* Please reconcile these & ping me or place a message on my talk page. [[User:AshLin|AshLin]] ([[User talk:AshLin|talk]]) 14:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 
<!-- By replacing this line, write first comment here. -->
 
<!-- By replacing this line, write first comment here. -->
 +
::* {{Ping|AshLin}}  Thank you for the review.  Copyvio/close paraphrasing concerns have (hopefully) been adequately addressed.  Sadly, your concerns about the hook not being of interest may prove insurmountable, in which case, I'll abandon this as a candidate.  To a lay reader such as myself (physician by trade), a new genus of fish being described this year (2 months ago) seems interesting enough. (At least as, if not more, interesting than 2 out of 5 DYK noms.){{cn}}  But, I'm happy to work with you... How about these?  One emphasizes the timeliness of the entry, another notes some interesting features of the fish, and one does both:
 +
:* '''ALT3''' ... that this summer the '''[[Ozichthys|cream-spotted cardinalfish]]''' was announced to be the sole member of a new genus of tropical fish?
 +
:* '''ALT4''' ... that the '''[[Ozichthys|cream-spotted cardinalfish]]''' is a nocturnal [[mouthbrooder]], was announced this summer to be the sole member of a new genus?
 +
:* '''ALT5''' ... that this summer a nocturnal [[mouthbrooder]], the '''[[Ozichthys|cream-spotted cardinalfish]]''', was found to be the sole member of a new genus of tropical fish? <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">[[User:Gaff|Gaff]]</font> <sup><small><b><font color="MediumSlateBlue">[[User_talk:Gaff|ταλκ]]</font></b></small></sup></em> 21:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 21:53, 18 October 2014

Ozichthys albimaculosus

Created/expanded by Gaff (talk). Self nominated at 21:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC).

  • Began review, new enough, long enough. AshLin (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Info clumped up, seperated it into sections, makes it more readable. Done.
  • Template:Ping Hook just not interesting enough - there are many monotypic genera. Please suggest alternatives not invoving monotypic genus status.
  • Please use Template:Convert for depth range to show depth both in feet and meters.
  • The superfluous words "Ref Ref. 90102" & "TL male/unsexed" shows sloppy cut & paste from Fishbase. Please be careful, it also implies that copyvio/close paraphrasing issues may exist. AshLin (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, besides the two copyvios, there are close paraphrasing issues also - " a single pore above and below the raised median canal on each pored lateral line scale", please rephrase this.
    • "color patterns present on the head body and vertical fins and"
    • "apogonichthys foa fowleria and neamia"
  • Please reconcile these & ping me or place a message on my talk page. AshLin (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Template:Ping Thank you for the review. Copyvio/close paraphrasing concerns have (hopefully) been adequately addressed. Sadly, your concerns about the hook not being of interest may prove insurmountable, in which case, I'll abandon this as a candidate. To a lay reader such as myself (physician by trade), a new genus of fish being described this year (2 months ago) seems interesting enough. (At least as, if not more, interesting than 2 out of 5 DYK noms.)[citation needed] But, I'm happy to work with you... How about these? One emphasizes the timeliness of the entry, another notes some interesting features of the fish, and one does both: