Template:Did you know nominations/Arthrocnemum macrostachyum
- 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 Jolly Ω Janner 07:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Arthrocnemum macrostachyum, Halocnemum strobilaceum[edit]
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
Halocnemum strobilaceum
- ... that the activity of crabs helped glasswort, Arthrocnemum macrostachyum and Halocnemum strobilaceum (pictured) recolonise oil-polluted marshland?
- Reviewed: Central Recreation Ground, Hastings
- Comment: Also reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Federal Reserve Bank Building (Seattle)
Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 06:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC).
Please specify in both articles how the crabs helped the plants do that. The ref doesn't make it clear, actually. -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- You were so quick off the mark in reviewing this nomination that I was still working on adding the fact to the second article. Is it OK now? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Double hooks verified online, articles ready, QPQ good, image good; character count of the two articles confirmed respectively to be 2854 and 2075 by DYKcheck! -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I was surprised to find basic issues with with second QPQ supplied; I had to pull the approved hook from prep because it was 245 characters (and the approved ALTs all had issues as well). Under the circumstances, I think a different QPQ review should be submitted (or, if you want to wait for a new hook to be devised so it can be reviewed, you can stick with this one). BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I must admit I didn't consider the length of the hooks. I think your action somewhat over-zealous when you only needed to trim one of the hooks a bit or change the wording to "planned" if that was the hook promoted. And I thought you would be well aware that I review many more nominations than I need for QPQs. Nevertheless, I have done another one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- QPQ now satisfied; the rest per Robert's original review. I obviously disagree with being "overzealous": when all three approved hooks have significant issues, it's better to pull than do major surgery on them on the fly. The surgery wasn't done afterward, when more leisure was available, which tells its own story. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I must admit I didn't consider the length of the hooks. I think your action somewhat over-zealous when you only needed to trim one of the hooks a bit or change the wording to "planned" if that was the hook promoted. And I thought you would be well aware that I review many more nominations than I need for QPQs. Nevertheless, I have done another one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- You were so quick off the mark in reviewing this nomination that I was still working on adding the fact to the second article. Is it OK now? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
