- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Odontomachus spinifer
edit
worker in amber showing spine
- ... that the Dominican amber ant Odontomachus spinifer (pictured) was named for its very large spine? Source: "De Andrade, 1994 etymology section".
Created by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 22:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC).
Looks good. I've added a DOI to the reference so readers can find the resource more easily. Interesting fact! Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
|
|
|
Overall: 
Upon further review, the description section could use some wikification and copyediting with linking to other relative articles, "then" is used in place when "than" should be. I would also change the first reference to specify the exact pages of relevance to the species. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- Not a fan of the review template thing, but whatever. What specifically do you feel needs wikification? I am not and have never claimed to be great at copy-editing, and it is NOT part of the reqirements for nomination or passing of a hook. The reference has been updated.--Kevmin § 01:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Kevmin: It would be useful if the description section included relative links to terms used such as "mesonotum" and "propodeum" but you are right, it's not specifically a requirement for DYK. Feel free to add those if you wish, other than that this DYK is good to go. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jon Kolbert: you should provide a review that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been met. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Upon further review, the description section could use some wikification and copyediting with linking to other relative articles, "then" is used in place when "than" should be. I would also change the first reference to specify the exact pages of relevance to the species. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)