Talk:Cladonota

A fact from Cladonota appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 April 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Cladonota's extravagant dorsal structures have been called both "grotesque" and "particularly charismatic"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cladonota.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

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 Lightburst talk 21:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Cladonota rex in La Selvia, Costa Rica

... that Cladonota's extravagant dorsal structures have been called both "grotesque" and "particularly charismatic"? Source: https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4750.4.11/39023 and https://kb.osu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/ff9984e4-0a10-5823-b7b7-f8dd88b082c8/content (the latter using the outdated name Sphongophorus ballista for C. apicalis)
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tumblr sexyman
- Comment: Technically QPQ exempt but I like to do my part! While the Flickr picture itself doesn't have identification at the species level, it has been identified on iNaturalist as Cladonota apicalis, so that could maybe be added to the caption.

5x expanded by Chaotic Enby (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 00:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General eligibility:
New enough: - no, expanded c.3x on 29 March
Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems: - content of hook is not in article

Image eligibility:

Freely licensed:
Used in article: - no
Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: ~~article not new enough~~ for DYK, ~~hook not in article~~, ~~image not in article~~. Sorry Bogger (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bogger: Correct me if I'm missing something, but the article's readable prose size seems to have been expanded from 1,050 bytes on March 28 to 5,300 bytes on April 2. How are you calculating that the prose size has been expanded only three times? Epicgenius (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1; it's technically a 4.99x expansion, but I'd just give it to em. I theorize that they were counting wikitext instead of readable prose size, which is indeed only 3x. ^Queenof_Hearts 19:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: Launchballer, who closed this as rejected. ^Queenof_Hearts 19:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, thanks QoH. And thank you as well for pinging Launchballer. Epicgenius (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Running Wikipedia:Prosesize gave 1073 B on this edit and 5367 B on this one, which should be just over 5x according to my calculations. I'll add the facts in the article (I forgot, apparently), regarding the picture I used that one (as it was a higher-quality image) but removed it from the article as it wasn't well-identified enough at the species level. The apicalis picture in the taxobox doesn't have a good contrast for the main page, but File:Cladonota rex.png (lower in the article) could work, and was incidentally the illustration for one of the two sources (the "particularly charismatic" one). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right, I'm stupid and started from the revision after that. ^Queenof_Hearts 20:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey yeh my "3x" meant the page size rather than the text size had an increase of about a factor of 3. I see now that the prose expansion is long enough, my bad. Image now in article. Substance of hook still not in article. So happy to reassess to a "maybe".