Template:Did you know nominations/Coelioxys sodalis

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 97198 (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Coelioxys sodalis[edit]

(

)

... that the bee Coelioxys sodalis (pictured) is a kleptoparasite?

Reviewed: Aegista diversifamilia

Created/expanded by Gaff (talk). Self nominated at 23:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC).

Accepted! It's New! — Preceding unsigned comment added by National Names 2000 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This review needs more details, in accordance with DYK review instructions. Details that are supposed to be checked in a review can be found at DYK Reviewing guide. Yoninah (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gaff: personally, I would use one of the other images in the commons category, both in the article and in the DYK. They give the viewer a better idea of the species than a close-up of the face does. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is new enough and long enough. The hook fact is appropriately sourced, the image is appropriately licensed, the article is neutral and I detected no policy issues with the sources I inspected. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Replaced the image per G S Palmer's suggestion. Now I'm confused. There is a stub created a day later by Gaff titled Coelioxys. It contains the same information as this article. Yoninah (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Coelioxys is the genus, which includes several sub-genuses and many, many species (listed here). That is why it is a stub. This article and the DYK is about one of those species: Coelioxys sodalis —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the images: the prior image with the full face shot is more compelling and will probably draw more hits/clicks from a general audience, rather than the replacement, with the wing awkwardly covering the face. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Restoring tick. Also reprinting the face image if the prep builder wishes to use it. Yoninah (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm +/- on the image and defer to community consensus. Thank you for the review(s) —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)