Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Cuyopsis"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Good to go. --LauraHale (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
imported>Miyagawa (Moved to prep 3.) |
imported>SporkBot m (Replace template per TFD outcome; no change in content) |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
====Cuyopsis==== | ====Cuyopsis==== | ||
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Cuyopsis|Cuyopsis}} | {{DYK nompage links|nompage=Cuyopsis|Cuyopsis}} | ||
− | + | *... that shells of the [[extinct]] Argentinian bivalve '''''[[Cuyopsis]]''''' are symmetrical enough to be named for it? | |
:*''Reviewed'': [[Template:Did you know nominations/Megaphragma mymaripenne|Megaphragma mymaripenne]] | :*''Reviewed'': [[Template:Did you know nominations/Megaphragma mymaripenne|Megaphragma mymaripenne]] | ||
:*''Comment'': binomial is ''Cuyopsis symmetricus'', named for the symmetry of the shells, see Sanchez page 69 under etymology | :*''Comment'': binomial is ''Cuyopsis symmetricus'', named for the symmetry of the shells, see Sanchez page 69 under etymology |
Latest revision as of 20:58, 5 March 2018
- The following discussion 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 Miyagawa (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Cuyopsis
- ... that shells of the extinct Argentinian bivalve Cuyopsis are symmetrical enough to be named for it?
- Reviewed: Megaphragma mymaripenne
- Comment: binomial is Cuyopsis symmetricus, named for the symmetry of the shells, see Sanchez page 69 under etymology
Created/expanded by Kevmin (talk). Self nom at 18:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
New and long enough. No pictures for copyright issues. Hook is properly formatted. Not an expert, but it reads as neutral enough to me. Article has inline citations and all facts are supported with them. Plagiarism check: no concern here. Hook is interesting enough given the topic.
the JSTOR supported text is supported and plagiarism free. Hook text is supported by citation from JSTOR.
