Template:Did you know nominations/Codium tomentosum
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Codium tomentosum
[edit]
- ... that the seaweed velvet horn (pictured) is fed upon by the sap-sucking slug?
- Reviewed: Lycoperdon perlatum
Created/expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Nominated by Rcej (talk) at 09:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
| Format | Citation | Neutrality | Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voceditenore (talk) | Voceditenore (talk) | Voceditenore (talk) | Voceditenore (talk) |
| Length | Newness | Adequate citations |
Formatted citations |
Reliable sources |
Neutrality | Plagiarism |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Voceditenore (talk) | Voceditenore (talk) | Voceditenore (talk) | Voceditenore (talk) | Voceditenore (talk) | Voceditenore (talk) | Voceditenore (talk) |
Everything checks out (I'm accepting the subscription journal sources on good faith.) except for the citation format which needs improvement, especially since these are behind subscription walls. The references to journal articles need the author, article name in " ", name of journal, date, vol. and page number(s). Also suggest adding Template:Subscription required to such citations. It also might be a good idea to add that the Velvet Horn is a seaweed to the hook, especially if the image is not used on the main page, e.g. "the seaweed velvet horn is..." Voceditenore (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing! The abstract of every source is viewable without a subscription. Which are you unable to access? :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 01:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree the the assertions are verifiable from the abstracts, without reading the whole article. I'm assuming something wildly at odds with what's in the WP article doesn't appear in later pages of the journal articles.;-) Nevertheless, the citations really ought to give the full bibliographic information for the source. I've done one in the article as a model (see footnote [7]). But I think what you have at the moment is probably sufficient at DYK level, so...
Good to go. Voceditenore (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree the the assertions are verifiable from the abstracts, without reading the whole article. I'm assuming something wildly at odds with what's in the WP article doesn't appear in later pages of the journal articles.;-) Nevertheless, the citations really ought to give the full bibliographic information for the source. I've done one in the article as a model (see footnote [7]). But I think what you have at the moment is probably sufficient at DYK level, so...
