Template:Did you know nominations/Fenestraja plutonia
- 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 Allen3 talk 15:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Fenestraja plutonia
[edit]- ... that in 1891 a single specimen of Underworld windowskate was collected from the California coast, even though this fish is otherwise found only in the Atlantic?
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.
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)
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)
