Template:Did you know nominations/Sinotaia aeruginosa
- 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 Jolly Ω Janner 06:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sinotaia aeruginosa
[edit]( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
Sinotaia aeruginosa shell
- ... that freshwater snail Sinotaia aeruginosa (shell pictured) is common in restaurants in China?
Created by Snek01 (talk) and by Elmidae (talk). Self-nominated at 12:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC). I changed the title from Bellamya aeruginosa to Sinotaia aeruginosa. Snek01 (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Article long enough, and new enough, seems to be neutral though technical in spots. Image is licenced but not of high resolution, so I would recommend against use. Can the Further reading materials be incorporated into the article at all though?--Kevmin § 02:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, "Further reading" section can not be incorporated now. Fortunately it comply with a standard of Wikipedia:Further reading. By the way, the article has 35 inline references. It is quite unfair to ask for more during the DYK hook review. - Could you add {{Technical statement}} template after the sentence(s) that you consider technical, please? I, or other editors, will address it in the future. - OK, because of high importance of Sinotaia aeruginosa article, I will accomplish it with better image from the second hook. Is it OK?
Cipangopaludina cathayensis shell
- ALT1: ... that freshwater snails Sinotaia aeruginosa and Cipangopaludina cathayensis (shell pictured) are used in Chinese cuisine?
Snek01 (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
If the references in the further reading section can't be incorporated (why?) then they will have to stay. I will not the WP:Further reading notes that Further reading sections are not common, bit are wholly acceptable as noted by Snek01. Both articles are new enough and very well referenced, with no policy issued identified in the prose. Rereading of S. aeruginosa shows the article to not be as technical as I thought the first time reviewing. New image is fully main page usable. offline sources are taken agf. good to go.--Kevmin § 16:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
