Template:Did you know nominations/Scorpaenopsis diabolus
Appearance
- The following discussion 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 15:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Scorpaenopsis diabolus
[edit]- ... that the spines of the false stonefish (pictured) can inflict a painful wound?
- Reviewed: Herbert Thomas Johnson
Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 13:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC).
-
- A blanket "good to go" with no details does not qualify as a QPQ. Please provide details of what you checked so that this nomination can be promoted to a prep area. DYK review instructions please
begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed
— Maile (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- A blanket "good to go" with no details does not qualify as a QPQ. Please provide details of what you checked so that this nomination can be promoted to a prep area. DYK review instructions please
- ALT1 ... that the false stonefish (pictured) uses his coloration as camouflage to ambush his prey?
- I find this fact a bit more engaging, since spines are a mechanism of defense and usually inflict nasty wounds (they are actually meant to do so). - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't object to ALT1, though it would require a further reference, or we could enlarge the original hook to ALT2: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- This seems like a good source. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- ALT2 ... that the spines of the false stonefish (pictured) are venomous and can inflict a painful wound?
- - date of creation, size, image verified. But why does the second ref refer to Aeoliscus punctulatus? Óðinn (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Because I don't know how best to provide an url for a Google Books reference. The reference doesn't refer to Aeoliscus punctulatus but does highlight it because it was the fish species I was looking for when I found this reference and this fish was just below it on the same page. I have now replaced the url. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)