Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Fenestraja plutonia"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Noswall59
(emboldening second opinion request)
imported>Cwmhiraeth
(Second opinion)
Line 11: Line 11:
  
 
-->
 
-->
* ... that in [[1891]] a single [[specimen (biology)|specimen]], supposedly of '''[[Fenestraja plutonia|Underworld windowskate]]''', was collected from the [[California]] coast, even though the [[skate (fish)|skate]] is overwhelmingly [[Atlantic Ocean|Atlantic]]?
+
* ... that in [[1891]] a single [[specimen (biology)|specimen]] of '''[[Fenestraja plutonia|Underworld windowskate]]''' was collected from the [[California]] coast, even though this fish is otherwise found only in the [[Atlantic Ocean|Atlantic]]?
 
<!--  
 
<!--  
 
-->
 
-->
Line 29: Line 29:
 
::Tweaked the hook, though i wonder if either could work. Also changed the reference per your suggestion. [[User:Ryan shell|Ryan shell]] ([[User talk:Ryan shell|talk]]) 17:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 
::Tweaked the hook, though i wonder if either could work. Also changed the reference per your suggestion. [[User:Ryan shell|Ryan shell]] ([[User talk:Ryan shell|talk]]) 17:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 
:::Okay, thanks. I think it passes as DYk, but, as this is my first review, I will '''ask for a second opinion''' on the talk-page. Well done, —[[User:Noswall59|Noswall59]] ([[User talk:Noswall59|talk]]) 17:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC).
 
:::Okay, thanks. I think it passes as DYk, but, as this is my first review, I will '''ask for a second opinion''' on the talk-page. Well done, —[[User:Noswall59|Noswall59]] ([[User talk:Noswall59|talk]]) 17:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC).
 +
:* [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] Giving a second opinion; the reviewer has covered the necessary DYK criteria and I agree with the assessment made. I have tweaked the hook for smoother reading and to remove the POV "supposedly". [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 09:40, 4 March 2015 (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 09:40, 4 March 2015

Fenestraja plutonia

Created by Ryan shell (talk). Self nominated at 15:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC).

I'll review this. —Noswall59 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC).
Article: The content is long enough (>3000 characters), new enough (created 2 March), cites sources throughout, doesn't appear to contain copyrighted text.
Hook: you ought to cite the actual specimen ([1]). The hook is interesting enough and short enough. I am not sure how grammatical this is: "a single specimen, supposedly an Underworld windowskate, was collected". Should it be specimen "of" instead of "an"?
Other: QPQ checks out. No image used.
Symbol question.svg Other than the grammar niggle above, this looks ready to go. —Noswall59 (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC).
Tweaked the hook, though i wonder if either could work. Also changed the reference per your suggestion. Ryan shell (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I think it passes as DYk, but, as this is my first review, I will ask for a second opinion on the talk-page. Well done, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC).
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Giving a second opinion; the reviewer has covered the necessary DYK criteria and I agree with the assessment made. I have tweaked the hook for smoother reading and to remove the POV "supposedly". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)