Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Lauridromia dehaani"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Cwmhiraeth (Response) |
imported>Ashorocetus |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
::*[[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] New enough. Long enough. I think the description section is too closeley paraphrased and also a bit technical for non-specialists. [[User:Abyssal|Abyssal]] ([[User talk:Abyssal|talk]]) 03:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC) | ::*[[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] New enough. Long enough. I think the description section is too closeley paraphrased and also a bit technical for non-specialists. [[User:Abyssal|Abyssal]] ([[User talk:Abyssal|talk]]) 03:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC) | ||
::::{{ping|Abyssal}} It is interesting that you should say there is close paraphrasing in the description section because Earwig gives the article a clean bill of health with a 0.0% confidence. However, I have rewritten one sentence, and I do not think erring slightly on the technical side is a bar to DYK. Of course I could leave out some of the details, which are mostly concerned I suppose with distinguishing this species from other similar ones, but that seems a pity. When describing organisms, there is a certain order in which the different characteristics are mentioned and I need to stick to that. If you want me to make further alterations, you could perhaps be more precise about sentences you don't like. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 06:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC) | ::::{{ping|Abyssal}} It is interesting that you should say there is close paraphrasing in the description section because Earwig gives the article a clean bill of health with a 0.0% confidence. However, I have rewritten one sentence, and I do not think erring slightly on the technical side is a bar to DYK. Of course I could leave out some of the details, which are mostly concerned I suppose with distinguishing this species from other similar ones, but that seems a pity. When describing organisms, there is a certain order in which the different characteristics are mentioned and I need to stick to that. If you want me to make further alterations, you could perhaps be more precise about sentences you don't like. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 06:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC) | ||
− | + | :::::[[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] Long enough, created within seven days of nomination, no close paraphrasing issues, QPQ complete. The one issue is that the hook is unclear. I would tack a "for camouflage" on the end or something like that to make it more easy to understand what "wear sponge" means. [[Ashorocetus]] ([[User talk:Ashorocetus|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Ashorocetus|contribs]]) 13:53, 3 April 2016 (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 13:53, 3 April 2016
DYK toolbox |
---|
Lauridromia dehaani
- ... that the crab Lauridromia dehaani prefers to wear sponge?
- Reviewed: Recorded In Hollywood Records
Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 08:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC).
-
New enough. Long enough. I think the description section is too closeley paraphrased and also a bit technical for non-specialists. Abyssal (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Ping It is interesting that you should say there is close paraphrasing in the description section because Earwig gives the article a clean bill of health with a 0.0% confidence. However, I have rewritten one sentence, and I do not think erring slightly on the technical side is a bar to DYK. Of course I could leave out some of the details, which are mostly concerned I suppose with distinguishing this species from other similar ones, but that seems a pity. When describing organisms, there is a certain order in which the different characteristics are mentioned and I need to stick to that. If you want me to make further alterations, you could perhaps be more precise about sentences you don't like. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Long enough, created within seven days of nomination, no close paraphrasing issues, QPQ complete. The one issue is that the hook is unclear. I would tack a "for camouflage" on the end or something like that to make it more easy to understand what "wear sponge" means. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 13:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Ping It is interesting that you should say there is close paraphrasing in the description section because Earwig gives the article a clean bill of health with a 0.0% confidence. However, I have rewritten one sentence, and I do not think erring slightly on the technical side is a bar to DYK. Of course I could leave out some of the details, which are mostly concerned I suppose with distinguishing this species from other similar ones, but that seems a pity. When describing organisms, there is a certain order in which the different characteristics are mentioned and I need to stick to that. If you want me to make further alterations, you could perhaps be more precise about sentences you don't like. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)