Template:Did you know nominations/Beddomeia Waterhousae
- 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 SL93 (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Beddomeia waterhouseae
- ... that the range of freshwater snail Beddomeia waterhouseae consists merely of a small tributary in Tasmania? Source: "Distribution: Small tributary of Little Claytons Rivulet, Tasmania" Ponder et. al. (2020). "Beddomeia waterhouseae Ponder & Clark, 1993". Australian Freshwater Molluscs. Revision 1. The Australian Museum.
- Reviewed: Gourd mouth organ (by adopter Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs))
Created/expanded by Kikits (talk). Self-nominated at 03:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC).
5x expansion. Need substantial work. --evrik (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)- Suggest closing this; the nominator is a student in a Wikipedia Education class who hasn't edited for over a month, so I suspect the assignment and any interest in DYK has ended and "[an interesting fact about]" is not the catchiest hook. Belle (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I've adopted this per Special:Diff/1033535663; please give me some time to work on this. Thanks! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 08:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Updating icon to reflect current conditions. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'll take this on as a reviewer. I've tapped a friendly scientist Wikipedian on the shoulder to help with the cleanup; I note that there are still a couple of maintenance tags. Please say when the maintenance tags are gone and I'll swing into review action. Schwede66 18:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your good work, Ambrosia10; appreciate you chipping in. Thanks also to Rotideypoc41352 for their significant work towards getting this into shape. I've amended the DYK credits accordingly. I've tweaked some references further and removed the two maintenance tags as the issues have been dealt with. There are further referencing issues that extend beyond DYK requirements that I have documented on the article's talk page. You or any other editor may attend to this and that does not need to happen before this going onto the homepage. Significant expansion started on 17 May and this got nominated one week later. Plenty long enough. Adequately referenced. Neutral in tone. Earwig is down (it says it could not find this article!?) so I'll have to come back to this. The hook fact should be more explicitly mentioned in the article; it hints at the small distribution in several places but it does not say so as explicitly as it does in the hook or the references. The hook is certainly interesting. QPQ has been done. This is almost there (Earwig-assessment pending); not much to do to get it over the line. Schwede66 20:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: Thank you and Ambrosia10 for your diligence. Try this corrected Earwig link? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
