Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Codium tomentosum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Codium tomentosum

[edit]

The velvet horn seaweed (Codium tomentosum)

Created/expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Nominated by Rcej (talk) at 09:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hook review for Voceditenore (talk)
Format Citation Neutrality Interest
Voceditenore (talk) Voceditenore (talk) Voceditenore (talk) Voceditenore (talk)


Article review
Length Newness Adequate
citations
Formatted
citations
Reliable
sources
Neutrality Plagiarism
Voceditenore (talk) Voceditenore (talk) Voceditenore (talk) Voceditenore (talk) Voceditenore (talk) Voceditenore (talk) Voceditenore (talk)


  • Everything checks out (I'm accepting the subscription journal sources on good faith.) except for the citation format which needs improvement, especially since these are behind subscription walls. The references to journal articles need the author, article name in " ", name of journal, date, vol. and page number(s). Also suggest adding Template:Subscription required to such citations. It also might be a good idea to add that the Velvet Horn is a seaweed to the hook, especially if the image is not used on the main page, e.g. "the seaweed velvet horn is..." Voceditenore (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing! The abstract of every source is viewable without a subscription. Which are you unable to access? :) Rcej (Robert)talk 01:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree the the assertions are verifiable from the abstracts, without reading the whole article. I'm assuming something wildly at odds with what's in the WP article doesn't appear in later pages of the journal articles.;-) Nevertheless, the citations really ought to give the full bibliographic information for the source. I've done one in the article as a model (see footnote [7]). But I think what you have at the moment is probably sufficient at DYK level, so...

    Good to go. Voceditenore (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)