Template:Did you know nominations/Paratarsotomus macropalpis
- 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Paratarsotomus macropalpis edit
- ... that Paratarsotomus macropalpis is the fastest land animal relative to body length, with a speed of 322 body lengths per second, the equivalent of a human running at 1,300 mph (2,092 km/h)?
- ALT1 : ... that not only does Paratarsotomus macropalpis run at a speed equivalent to a human running at 1,300 mph (2,092 km/h), it also does so at temperatures lethal to most animals?
Created by AshLin (talk). Self Nominated at 04:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC).
- It's new.
- It's long enough - 1729 chars.
- It seems to be copying a source too closely. We're not the only one parroting the original but we should do better than such churnalism.
source: "The research team was also surprised to find the mites running on concrete up to 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius), a temperature significantly higher than the upper lethal temperature of most animals."
source: "The research team was also surprised to find the mites running on concrete up to 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius), a temperature significantly higher than the upper lethal temperature of most animals."
source: "They were also surprised to find the mites running on concrete up to 60 degrees Celsius, a temperature significantly higher than the upper lethal temperature of most animals."
article: "the researchers were surprised to find the mites running at such speeds on concrete at temperatures upto 60 °C (140 °F), which is significant because this temperature is well above the lethal limit for the majority of animal species."
- The hook is short enough at 191 characters but only just. It could be made tighter.
- The hook content is interesting but it might be good to work in the bit about them running hot.
- There doesn't seem to be a QPQ.
- There's no picture.
So, there's more to do, please, before we can promote this. Andrew (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson:. I have rephrased the copyvio sentence. Thanks for pointing it out.
- Added alt1 incorporating the thermophilic behaviour.
- No free images could be found.
- I have made a request for the main paper at Resource Request but it has not
yetbeen provided. I could not find any other papers suitable for the article about this obscure mite. My QPQ is pending. I had mentioned in the comment form in the nomination template but it seems to have been gobbled up!AshLin (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)- QPQ done. Relicanthus daphneae
- May please re-evaluate @Andrew Davidson:. Thanks for reviewing. AshLin (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Reviewer needed to check new ALT1, that all issues have been addressed, and that no additional issues exist. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Per WP:DYKSG, "There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected. Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected." I do not think this article deals adequately with the topic. There is no information on what it looks like, who discovered it and when, what it eats, its life cycle, etc. The article is dominated by information about its speed, which, while interesting, does not present the reader with a reasonably balanced overview. Sasata (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Sasata:, I am in India and have no access to resources other than the internet. I have made a request for two papers on Resource Request. I'm afraid that without those, I have no way to get more information. Your point is well taken but I have no means of access to paywalled articles. If someone gives me those, I shall add whatever material I can find. Except for this issue of completeness, which I cannot address at the moment, are there any other issues I can address? AshLin (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have located more details and will add these when I have a moment. Andrew (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have added details of its discovery and morphology, quoting the original report. Note that, as this was first published in 1916, it is public domain on the USA and so we can freely reproduce it. That issue of the journal also has a picture which we could use but I have not located that image online yet. Andrew (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Per WP:DYKSG, "There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected. Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected." I do not think this article deals adequately with the topic. There is no information on what it looks like, who discovered it and when, what it eats, its life cycle, etc. The article is dominated by information about its speed, which, while interesting, does not present the reader with a reasonably balanced overview. Sasata (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
