Template:Did you know nominations/Asexual reproduction in starfish
- 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: rejected by Allen3 talk 09:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
No progress in resolving issues after 2 weeks
Asexual reproduction in starfish
[edit]- ... that a "comet" can develop into a star?
Created/expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nom at 05:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that a comet can develop into an asteroid?
- hmm...is "asteroid" more accurate than just "star"? Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I see where this is coming from (asteroidae), but it is not in the article text proper. The star thing, although already a little "cute", is at least undeniable. I'd prefer putting comet in quotation marks though. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have added quotation marks to the original hook as per your suggestion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
of ALT1. I believe the other two detract from the hook of the article. I would be more inclined to click on ALT1 than the others. Article is new, good length, adequately cited, and I did not find any evidence of plagiarism. Great article as well! --Odie5533 (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Much of this article appears to consist of content from pre-existing articles, including two (Linckia multifora and Coscinasterias tenuispina) that were recently featured in DYK, plus Linckia guildingi. I haven't measured the degree of duplication, but I estimate that the article does not meet the "newness" standard of WP:Did you know, which states "For DYK purposes, a "new" article is no more than five days old, and may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article." --Orlady (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I wrote this article and the other 3 articles mentioned by Orlady. Two of these were nominated for DYK but not by me. It was because I thought that it was such an interesting subject that was not currently covered in Wikipedia that I wrote this article. It uses the species mentioned above as examples but is not copied from the pre-existing articles which in any event were my own work. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think I still say the DYK passes. I had originally searched Google for phrases from the article and it did not show anything. The article is rewritten, and while it does paraphrase the other articles, I think the time invested in creating the article would be equal to that of writing 1500 original characters. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Still consists mainly of information copied and pasted from other articles after 2 weeks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
