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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I fixed up a number of issues just now but the article still needs work. At least one ref to an unreliable source (Int. Business Times), and I have a suspicion that several of these secondary factoid pieces are quite entirely duplicative and could be replaced by one single example. Alternative hook is unsuitable - species are never just refererred to by their specific epithet, so this is misleading. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Potamophylax coronavirus
@Leomk0403:@Elmidae: The following is additional information; the above reviewer takes precedence here.
As of today, the article has only 1185 characters, whereas for DYK it needs at least 1500 characters.
The first sentence of the Etymology section refers to the coronavirus pandemic of 2020. However that pandemic is now consistently called Covid 19, because some people were already catching and spreading it at the end of 2019, so although "2020" does match the source (source 1 as of today), the point needs to be clarified somehow.
The habitat of this caddis fly is the Lumbardhi i Decanit river, and in the article that habitat is described as a battlefield between two sides. Since the article needs to be expanded to pass DYK, it would make sense to expand by quoting the points of view of both sides. How is the caddis fly threatened? How does the construction business defend its actions?
The picture in the article is free, but is not clear as a thumbnail, so I have made a cropped version for you (cropped versions of article images are permitted at DYK).
I have added an External links section with commonscat and a couple more possible sources. The second one may be a more readable version of the Ibrahimi source that you already have, though it may not have all the information - I have not checked.
The article is neutral and the QPQ is OK. Earwig confirms no copyvio.
I hope that some of this well help to bring this nom forward. Storye book (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Added some info (turns out original desc is CC-BY-4.0 so that was easy.) For the IBN ref, a citation about S.covida ( can't spell genus) is a good substitution.Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 14:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@Elmidae: Regarding your above review, the creator has now made some improvements to the article. Please could you kindly check this out? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
This needs a new reviewer. The original reviewer hasn't edited since January 12. SL93 (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: Would you like me to formalise my above supportive review comments into a full review? I feel that I should ask first, because of the new reviewer symbol which asks for somebody else. Storye book (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
OK, thank you, I shall do that. I have guests at the moment, so please forgive me if I have to do partial saves before I complete this.Storye book (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Overall: ALT0 checks out in the article, and is cited there. However the source for ALT1 explains more clearly than the article why or how the insect is endangered by the hydropower plant. That situation weakens ALT1, because the article does not reflect the source's comment about pollution of the river. I have struck ALT1 for that reason, but if you would like to address that point, I can un-strike it. Storye book (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Leomk0403: and @Rex65mya: If you have no objection, I shall give it the green tick for ALT0 only. Storye book (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Storye book, it's been two weeks. If no objection has been registered at this point, I think it's time to either give this a tick for the remaining hook or shut it down. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, BlueMoonset. Good to go with ALT0. ETA I have added ALT0a, a rephrased version of ALT0, so that the image can be used if requuired. Storye book (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I fixed up a number of issues just now but the article still needs work. At least one ref to an unreliable source (Int. Business Times), and I have a suspicion that several of these secondary factoid pieces are quite entirely duplicative and could be replaced by one single example. Alternative hook is unsuitable - species are never just refererred to by their specific epithet, so this is misleading. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
This needs a new reviewer. The original reviewer hasn't edited since January 12. SL93 (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
ALT0 checks out in the article, and is cited there. However the source for ALT1 explains more clearly than the article why or how the insect is endangered by the hydropower plant. That situation weakens ALT1, because the article does not reflect the source's comment about pollution of the river. I have struck ALT1 for that reason, but if you would like to address that point, I can un-strike it. Storye book (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, BlueMoonset. Good to go with ALT0. ETA I have added ALT0a, a rephrased version of ALT0, so that the image can be used if requuired. Storye book (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)