Template:Did you know nominations/Ichthyophis glutinosus
- The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Ichthyophis glutinosus edit
- ... that the larvae of the terrestrial Ceylon caecilian have gills and a tail fin and develop in water?
- Reviewed: List of National Basketball Association season minutes leaders
- Comment: Although the reference for the hook is mainly about a different species of caecilian, it repeatedly compares its development to that of this species.
Created/expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nom at 05:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Hook good, Article looks good expansion wise, the "Species account" reference does not have a url link though, so it can't actually be checked at this point.--Kevmin § 04:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oops... I've added it now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- I see it, but I'm a little hesitant on if the source meets the reliable sources guidelines.--Kevmin § 07:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- The source for the hook is actually a scientific paper from the Journal of Morphology, as mentioned in the comment above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- I saw that and have no problems with the hook reference. Its the "species account" reference that I have reservations about.--Kevmin § 07:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- The trouble with obscure species is that scientific articles don't usually go into their basic biology and other sources of information are very limited. For amphibians, AmphibiaWeb is a usually a good source but not for this particular caecilian. The source you refer to does supply references of a sort and is the best I could find. I have used it for the description and parts of the biology section and the description is confirmed by the images available elsewhere on the web. This information is not really controversial, is it? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- I saw that and have no problems with the hook reference. Its the "species account" reference that I have reservations about.--Kevmin § 07:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- The source for the hook is actually a scientific paper from the Journal of Morphology, as mentioned in the comment above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- I see it, but I'm a little hesitant on if the source meets the reliable sources guidelines.--Kevmin § 07:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oops... I've added it now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I totally understand the hardness of finding information on obscure taxa. (Try finding info on fossil plant species, lol) I'll go with agf on the reference, with the note that it may get challenged one on the mainpage.--Kevmin § 08:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
