- 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 Allen3 talk 10:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Cyanea nozaki, Alepas pacifica edit
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that the ghost jellyfish may have a goose barnacle hanging from its bell and little fish swimming among its tentacles?
- Reviewed: Montsec, Meuse
- Comment: Also reviewed History of Roman and Byzantine domes
Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 06:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC).
Both new enough, long enough. Neutral and well sourced. No copyvio that I could detect. QPQ has been completed (two reviews to balance the two articles featured). The hook is interesting, within length, and sourced. However, it is not found in both the articles, which I recall being a requirement. I would be inclined to let that pass, but I think someone might overturn my review. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Perhaps BlueMoonset could give us his view. In my experience, some reviewers have demanded this while others (most?) are rather more relaxed about it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed the original ping, G S Palmer, Cwmhiraeth. While the facts from the hook that are relevant to the two species in relation to each other should be mentioned and sourced in both articles (and appear to be so mentioned and sourced), the jellyfish's relation to the little fish swimming among its tentacles has nothing to do with barnacle and is not appropriate to include in the barnacle's article. So that fact only needs to be in the jellyfish article. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- With that cleared up, this is
good to go. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- With that cleared up, this is
- @BlueMoonset: Perhaps BlueMoonset could give us his view. In my experience, some reviewers have demanded this while others (most?) are rather more relaxed about it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
