Talk:Phallichthys tico
 | A fact from Phallichthys tico appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 September 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Did you know nomination
[edit]- 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 Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
( )
A mixed-sex pair
- ... that the dwarf merry widow (pictured) is not very brave? Source: Bussing (1963), p. 10
Created by Surtsicna (talk). Self-nominated at 08:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Phallichthys tico; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
New enough, long enough and within policy. The image is very nice and properly tagged. QPQ has been done. The hook is however problematic. I personally find it extremely charming, but I'm sadly not convinced it is "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest", as the guidelines stipulate. I mean, those guys really don't look very brave, so it doesn't surprise me that they are not very brave. And are small fish in general believed to be very brave? Maybe there is a way to tweak the hook somewhat to solve this problem though? Another solution might be to remove the image, as it would work better if the reader doesn't see the little fish. Also, the "hook fact in the article should be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which it appears", so there should be an inline citation supporting the hook more closely. Yakikaki (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, Yakikaki, I fully agree that this particular hook would be better off without the image. Only then does its charm work best. I just could not resist nominating the photo too given its spectacularly high quality. No other hook idea comes to mind, however, so I am happy to lose the image. As for the inline citation, the hook fact is mentioned twice in the article and I have now duplicated the citation at the second mention too. Surtsicna (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
All right Surtsicna, then we'll do it without the picture (though I agree it is an unusually good one). With that I am satisfied and this should be good to go! Yakikaki (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, Yakikaki, I fully agree that this particular hook would be better off without the image. Only then does its charm work best. I just could not resist nominating the photo too given its spectacularly high quality. No other hook idea comes to mind, however, so I am happy to lose the image. As for the inline citation, the hook fact is mentioned twice in the article and I have now duplicated the citation at the second mention too. Surtsicna (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
