Template talk:Did you know/Dominickus

Dominickus

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as 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 Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle}

... that the family placement for the fossil moth genus Dominickus was not noticed until entomologist Norman Tindale was looking at pictures of modern moths from Australia?

Reviewed: Encephalartos caffer ([1])

Created by Kevmin (talk). Nominated by Kevmin (talk) at 00:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed:

Hook

Length, format, content rules – All fine. "Identified", "clarified" or "confirmed" may be more suitable words to use as compared with the present "noticed", but see no reason to prevent as is. Deserter1 12:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source – Online reference to reliable academic journal. Deserter1 12:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interest – Marginal but acceptable. Deserter1 12:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image suitability, if applicable –
ALT hooks, if proposed –

Article

Length – Exceeds minimum length. Deserter1 12:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vintage – Moved to mainspace as new article on 4 August. Deserter1 12:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing (V, RS, BLP) – Multiple appropriate citations to coverage in reliable sources. Deserter1 12:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality – Objective. Deserter1 12:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism/close paraphrasing – No evidence. Deserter1 12:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
copyvio (files) – Deserter1 12:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting – None. Potential minor issue is spelling of species; given as "Dominickus castnioides" in reference 1 but "Dominickus castinodes" is used in article . Deserter1 12:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

species epithet fixed. --Kev min § 15:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/discussion:

Ready for DYK.