Template:Did you know nominations/Bathycrinus aldrichianus
- 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 Fuebaey (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Bathycrinus aldrichianus
[edit]- ...
that a lily grows several miles below the surface of the North Atlantic?(see below)
- Reviewed: Tim Frazier
Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 06:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC).
Review: This newly created self-nominated article is long enough with cites throughout. It has a nicely "hooky" hook at 111 characters; however the hook is not explicitly given in the text, nor is there the requisite cite at the end of the hook's sentence.- Random checks for copyright vio reveal only downstream duplications (i.e., copies of this article). QPQ checks out. The article is NPOV. There is no BLP involved. With some textual rewrite to accommodate the hook, this article should be GTG.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- The relevant sentence in the article (which has an inline citation to a reliable source) starts "Its depth range is from about 3,340 to 5,800 metres (10,960 to 19,030 ft),". Now 3340 metres is about two miles and 5800 metres is about 3.3 miles, and I think several miles is a reasonable way of stating this. However, we could instead have:
- ALT1 ... that lilies grow two or three miles below the surface of the North Atlantic? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I do believe you are misunderstanding the problem. There is no doubting the facts presented. The problem is in the method of presentation. To quote the DYK rule: "Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact." Conform your hook to that, and you are GTG.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was referring to sentence two in the Distribution section. This sentence has an inline citation. In case you are talking about mention of the North Atlantic, I have changed the punctuation of the article to combine the first two sentences of that section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- The sentence in question refers to meters, not miles; it is unreasonable to expect a reader to translate one to the other to verify your hook. That sentence also casts doubt on the very fact in your hook...to quote, "some of the greater depths are questionable". This article is not GTG.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think a hook with a depth of 2 to 3 miles is much better than one with 3,340 to 5,600 metres (10,960 to 18,370 ft). By converting the distance into miles we are helping the reader appreciate the depth involved. As for your other point, the source gives about 10 locations but at some of these only stem fragments were found, casting doubt on whether the crinoid actually lived there. The depth range now given in the article applies to complete specimens and I have removed the "questionable" sentence. The depths are on page 663 of the source if somebody wants to check them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The sentence in question refers to meters, not miles; it is unreasonable to expect a reader to translate one to the other to verify your hook. That sentence also casts doubt on the very fact in your hook...to quote, "some of the greater depths are questionable". This article is not GTG.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was referring to sentence two in the Distribution section. This sentence has an inline citation. In case you are talking about mention of the North Atlantic, I have changed the punctuation of the article to combine the first two sentences of that section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
New review needed after over two weeks. Note that the original "X" icon was not appropriate, as it is intended for articles that have little or no hope of meeting DYK requirements, something clearly not the case given the original review wording. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I added a few things including 'convert' template specifically for the distance mentioned in the ALT1 hook; one more anchor, a file from Commons showing the anatomy of a sea lily, and fuller description of reference. I read the above discussion and confirm that the article is good to go with ALT1. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 16:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
