Template:Did you know nominations/Cebrennus rechenbergi

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 PFHLai (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Cebrennus rechenbergi edit

(

)

... that the Moroccan flic-flac spider can flip forwards and backwards like a gymnast to escape threats?

Created by Sarefo (talk). Self nominated at 04:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

there's now also a picture in the article, but the original author has not sent the permission email to wikimedia yet. --Sarefo (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Note, permission was received by OTRS on June 25,[1] so the image is good to go. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the prose size. It appears to fall short of the eligibility requirement (1412/1500). I would hate to see this interesting DYK get rejected so please remedy the problem by briefly expanding it. I'm willing to keep this open if you can expand it shortly. Viriditas (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I have expanded the article slightly and it is now 1609 B. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The current nom is somewhat repetitive, telling us that the Moroccan flic-flac spider uses a flic-flac motion. Since we already know it is a flic-flac spider, would it be helpful to describe it in a different way here? Although interesting, I see more appeal with the spider robot on Mars hook in the last paragraph, but that's just me. Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Waa, a flic-flacking spider, what can be more cool?! :) I'll marvel about the bot when it actually has some real uses, not just a bionics guy talking his toy up :) About the nom, how about "the Moroccan huntsman spider Cebrennus rechenbergi uses a flic-flac motion"? --Sarefo (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Better. In the previous hook, you said it uses the motion to evade threats. In the article, you say it engages in "flic-flacking in order to minimize evade threats". That doesn't sound right. If I had to guess, I would say you were missing an "and", as in "flic-flacking in order to minimize and evade threats. The source cited doesn't help. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. No idea how the "minimize" got in there. --Sarefo (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Considering that we have so little content, the fact that the sentence "It is most closely related to the Tunisian Cebrennus villosus, which does not flic-flac" is unsourced presents a problem. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

sourced now. I think I just got bored putting the refs behind each sentence :) -Sarefo (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That's definitely an improvement, thanks. After reviewing the nomination and making a few copyedits, I'm seeing the primary problem come into focus. The article relies on just two sources: a university press release and a science news website. I think the article really need to cite the main source Jäger 2014. If you don't have access to it, we can request it at WP:RX. I think in this particular instance, it would be very helpful. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've opened a request. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Look, the spider flic-flacs. No idea how the paper will change the veracity of that. But if you find the time to improve the article, go ahead :) --Sarefo (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not satisfied just yet. Let's repeat your current ALT below in case another reviewer wants to sign off on it. Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, do what you think is best; but I don't remember having to jump through hoops of shifting goalposts the last times I wanted to share something awesome in the DYK section. I don't see the merit of going to the original literature for now, and I think it would be in everybody's interest if the discussion about the DYKability of the article would not take more time than actually creating the article. --Sarefo (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't watchlist this page. I can't be the only reviewer around here. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that the Moroccan huntsman spider Cebrennus rechenbergi uses a flic-flac motion?

Looking again, I see paraphrasing issues. I've made the sources explicit. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just added two new reliable sources into the article for expansion and verification.[2] Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

And, I just fixed another error.[3] This article requires a thorough fact-checking, and is far from accurate. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Correction: the article was correct but the NYT and UPI were mistaken. I have remedied the situation and I will now add an inline note explaining it. Viriditas (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is new enough, and now meets the prose length requirements. The article is sourced, though it should at some point be updated with the actual physical descriptions/ecology etc from the type description. Also there are still several sentences that have very similar/same wording as sources. If the wording were updated It would not be an issue. it looks like the original nominator has abandoned the nom?--Kev min § 20:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I was put off by the never-ending shifting goalposts proposed to what I think should be a sufficiently interesting article of sufficient quality. C'mon, it's a goddamn FLIC-FLACKING SPIDER!! :) Do what you will with it, I don't care anymore. I don't remember having it been like this with earlier nominations. --Sarefo (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Sarefo, I understand your frustration. However, what appears to you as "moving the goalposts" is actually a process-driven, detail-oriented attempt to review your nomination. If reviewers find a problem and then you fix it, but then another problem is found, that is not "moving the goalposts", it is an attempt to fix issues with this nomination. We shouldn't pass a nomination simply because it has met one criteria when others are left unfulfilled, so I don't follow your reasoning here. FWIW, User:Phoebe said she would email me the research article so I could better review the actual source. We have had many problems with earlier nominations, so the criteria has tightened up a bit in practice. Of course, if a nomination is made that has little to no issues, it is easily passed. At this point, I'm not comfortable passing it until I've had a chance to look at the research article and most of the close paraphrasing is resolved. If Phoebe sends me the article, I'll be happy to take another look. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, Phoebe sent me the original source and I'm reading it now. There is no way the current article can pass due to the close paraphrasing, so it needs to be rewritten. However, I will attempt to help out as time permits and see if we can't get this passed. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Viriditas, I recognize your good intentions. Let me know if you think I can contribute anything content-related to the article. I'm really bad with re-phrasing though, so I'm gonna pass on that. As an aside, part of my reaction was due to my fear that en.wiki might become more like the ghastly de.wiki, where a league of blockwarts is making a living off of wanking off to making other editor's life a misery. It hurts to be excluded from the wikipedia of your native language, so sometimes my tempers flare :P --Sarefo (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I understand. I've got a little bit of free time right now, so let's see if I can't finish this up. I'll notify the DYK talk page that it will need a review when I'm done (I can't pass it now because I'm too involved in cleaning it up). Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Update: there's still close paraphrasing in the article. I think I'll have it completely removed by today. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Image - Done.

Infobox - Done.

Lead - Done.

Etymology - Done.

Behavior - Done.

Spider robot - Done.

I think that just about does it. We're good to go. Viriditas (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I've posted a note on the talk page requesting a reviewer to look at the current version. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kevmin:, FWIW. Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This article has been worked on intensively by Viriditas so it seems only fair to add him/her to the credits. The article is new enough and long enough. The image is acceptably licensed and I understand that policy issues have been resolved. I don't believe a QPQ review has been done, but in the interests of finishing this long-standing review, I will donate my review of Emmanuel Ifeajuna in lieu. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, given the extent of previous issues, "I understand that policy issues have been resolved" is not sufficient. It's your job as reviewer to personally check that Viriditas, through heroic work, has managed to find and fix all the close paraphrasing and other problems that existed, so that you can state that you yourself have confirmed that the article is free from the issues. Thank you for donating the QPQ. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Well, I assumed good faith on Viriditas's part, - I do not have access to the original source paper. However I have now looked at the sources available to me and found no copyright violations. So I consider this article ready for DYK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, I have no doubt of good faith on Viriditas's part, but anyone can make a mistake, or miss something, even with the best of intentions. It's why we have reviewers in the first place, to have an independent pair of eyes checking all the material once an editor has completed work. If you're satisfied on the general policy issues (close paraphrasing, neutrality, and so on), please feel free to reinstate your tick, since you're the one who has now done the checks. Thanks. (If you're doing AGF because of significant offline sourcing, you might want to consider the AGF tick.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't User:Sarefo exempted from the QPQ requirement because he only has two noms?[4] Cwmhiraeth, thanks for your donation. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Reinstating my tick. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)