Template:Did you know nominations/Relicanthus daphneae

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Relicanthus daphnaeae

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Relicanthus daphneae, originally thought to be one of the sea anemones, is so distinct from them that it belongs in a new order of its own?

Created/expanded by Sophie means wisdom (talk). Self nominated at 10:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC). @Sophie means wisdom:

• Began review! New enough, created & expanded on 10 May 2014.
• Not large enough! It needs to be at least 1500 characters using DYK check, presently it is only 1335 characters (209 words).
  • Fixed.
• Neutral, inline referencing, no copyvios detected. Referencing needs improvement. Please repair the AMNH ref. I recommend you replace the written out references with template:Cite journal and template:Cite web.
  • Fixed.
• Hook of suitable length! Interesting fact. Inline referencing.
  • At least I got one part right :s
• Pending rectification of these and any other observations.
• No Quid Pro Quo done?
  • I don't know what that is. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• • It means that for your DYK to be considered, you need to review some-one else's DYK. I'm reviewing this so that my DYK nomination Paratarsotomus macropalpis may be considered for DYK. This is mandatory per Wikipedia:DYK#gen5. AshLin (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I blame my school for ending Latin classes just before I got in. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Amar Nath Yadav reviewed.

• AshLin (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)