Template:Did you know nominations/Nothophantes horridus
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nothophantes horridus[edit]
- ... that the tiny horrid ground-weaver stopped a building development?
- Reviewed: I still have to review another nomination and it will post this here once it's done.
Created by JezGrove (talk). Self-nominated at 16:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC).
Article created on 11 June, nominated on 15 June, thus new enough. It is also long enough, neutral and well-referenced with inline citations. The article seems free of any copy-vio material. From the IUCN website I understand that that there are three locations where this spider lived, one was build upon, but the other two remain. While from the article I understand there are two sites, of which only one remains. You might wish to clarify that. The "First discovered in 1989, it is only known to inhabit one place on earth", also confused me also a bit, two or more quarries are more places than one. The hook is correctly formatted, short enough and certainly interesting. Direct citation after the hook sentences. The hook "that the tiny Horrid ground-weaver stopped a building development" is not as such, represented in the article where it is formulated more carefully. But the BBC uses hook-like language, so I'll give that a pass. QPQ not required for this editor yet as they only have 1 DYK credit. Interesting article! This one is almost good to go, just a bit of clarification needed on the number of locations. Crispulop (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback,Crispulop. You're right, the sources seem to contradict each other (sometimes even themselves!) re the locations and the confusion has crept into the article. My understanding is that the species is found in only one small geographic area near Plymouth (less then 1km2) within which specimens have been collected from one location in one limestone quarry, and two locations within a second quarry. I'll go back to the (science) sources to nail it down and amend the article accordingly. About to start preparing food (and myself!) for a birthday party of screaming 7 & 8 year-old girls so probably won't get to it until Monday a.m. now (UK time) - hope the delay isn't a problem?JezGrove (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Crispulop, I've (hopefully) addressed the issues about the number of locations satisfactorily now. I've also amended the capitalization of the common name to 'Horrid Ground-weaver' as per the IUCN website, so this will need changing in the hook, too. Hopefully everything is OK now, but let me know if there are any other changes that you think I should make. Best wishes - and thanks again for your help and feedback.JezGrove (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for introducing the clarifications, much better now! I've changed the capitalization of the species again. There are some Wiki guidelines on that: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). From what I understand of that, and of what I've seen on animal related articles on DYK it should not be capitalized. If I'm mistaken someone will probably fix it when the article appears on DYK. Crispulop (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
