Template:Did you know nominations/Laudakia nupta
- 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) 21:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Laudakia nupta
Laudakia nupta sitting on a rock.
- ... that Laudakia nupta (pictured) has been renamed over eight different times? [1]
- ALT1:... that the name of Laudakia nupta (pictured) comes from the Latin word for a bride who veils herself? [2]: "Named after the past participle of the Latin verb nūbo, meaning to cover, veil, but as transferred meaning: to wed marry; hence nupta means ‛one who hides herself (perhaps within rock slits)’, but more correctly ‛a bride-woman (who veils herself for bridegroom)’ (Lewis, 1969), hence denotes the beauty and a crown-like crest in the head region of the species, representing a bride crown"
- Comment: There weren't many fun facts that stood out to me, so if the person reviewing this has any ideas for ways to improve these hooks I'm all ears. Also this is my 5th DYK nom (3rd DYK self-nom).
Created by Starsandwhales (talk). Self-nominated at 19:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC).
-
article new enough and long enough. Alt1 hook cited, source taken AGF. I dont see the ALT0 hook actually in the article prose (eg 8 taxon names) if we like that one we should add the number 8 and list the synonyms the taxobox. I did a quick google scholar search and found this article on parasites which is a good addition, and could make for an interesting hook. --Kevmin § 23:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The 8 taxon thing is in the source, from the reptile database. I'm not sure where to add the parasite info (in description or in another section?), and the paper is about L. nupta nupta and not L. nupta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starsandwhales (talk • contribs) 21:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Starsandwhales: The article needs to ALSO mention specifically 8 names in the prose for the hook to be considered. So mentioning in the taxonomy that 8 name combinations have been used for the species. Also looking at the Reptile database page, only 6 unique name combinations seem to be present.
- The parasites would be mentioned in a separate section for parasites, and given that L. nupta nupta is a subspecies of L. nupta, it should be covered in the species article preferentially, sinvce WP:TOL and WP:Reptile guidelines are to only make subspecies articles if the species article is getting too large.--Kevmin § 19:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Article new enough and long enough, Alt1 hook in article and cited to verified source. Article sourced and verified, with no policy issues or copyright violations identified. Image not distinct in thumbnail view. good to go--Kevmin § 15:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
