Template:Did you know nominations/Tasmanian Seamounts
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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) 01:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Tasmanian Seamounts[edit]
- ... that corals that live on the Tasmanian Seamounts are among the longest-living organisms on Earth?
Created/expanded by Resident Mario (talk). Self nom at 23:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I cannot find the hook claim in the cited ref. Otherwise the article is long enough and new enough. Plagiarism check turned up nothing. Changed "oldest living" to "longest–living" in the hook to avoid confusion with organisms that haven't evolved for a long time. --Pgallert (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, stony corals were never specifically mentioned. Here is the reference I meant, and I've edited it to make it vauger, as stony is not specifically mentioned. ResMar 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- My fault, sorry =) ResMar 01:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry to bother you again. Hook is now properly referenced, but the expression "among the oldest organisms on Earth" again reads to me as if they were present on the planet before most other species developed, not that they are extremely long-lived. I'm not native English, is it only me who reads that interpretation into the hook? --Pgallert (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- My fault, sorry =) ResMar 01:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, stony corals were never specifically mentioned. Here is the reference I meant, and I've edited it to make it vauger, as stony is not specifically mentioned. ResMar 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Added living sorry, about that. ResMar 17:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Close paraphrasing concerns. Examples: "24 to 43% of the invertebrate species were new to science, and that between 16 and 33% appeared to be restricted to the seamount environment" vs "Of the invertebrate species, 24 to 43% were new to science,
and between 16 and 33% appeared to be restricted to the seamount environment"; "Many of these organisms are hundreds or even thousands of years old, and are among the longest-living organisms in the world" vs "Some of the flora and fauna are hundreds and possibly thousands of years old making them some of the longest-lived animals on earth". Please check thoroughly for phrasing and sourcing issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, my fault, I offer my sincere apologies for the sloppy plagiarism check. I only sampled what appeared to be the main source in the version first submitted to DYK. Will look through it as soon as I can. --Pgallert (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh for the love of...I'll give you the first but the second sentence you mention is completely legitimate. Changed it a teeny bit, but given the sentence structure there are only so many ways to deliver the same message. I must say organisms or something similar because the source is not specific about what organisms it is, exactly, despite me having a pretty damn clear guess of what they meant. I must say "are hundreds or thousands of years old" because, hell, they're hundred or thousands of years old. I must say "among the longest-living organisms in the world" or something similar because they are exactly that. Among the logest-living organisms in the world/on Earth/in the ocean/of all benthic fauna. ResMar 02:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Went over it with a Sharpie, now can I please stop returning to this page? It's becoming a chore. ResMar 03:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Nikkimaria is right, if it cannot be said in any other way it must be quoted. Did that with the "thousands of years" phrase. Reworded a bit further, hope I haven't destroyed the meaning of it. Checked the HTML sources with the Duplication Detector and the Pdf sources manually (all of them) and believe that it is all fine now. --Pgallert (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Went over it with a Sharpie, now can I please stop returning to this page? It's becoming a chore. ResMar 03:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh for the love of...I'll give you the first but the second sentence you mention is completely legitimate. Changed it a teeny bit, but given the sentence structure there are only so many ways to deliver the same message. I must say organisms or something similar because the source is not specific about what organisms it is, exactly, despite me having a pretty damn clear guess of what they meant. I must say "are hundreds or thousands of years old" because, hell, they're hundred or thousands of years old. I must say "among the longest-living organisms in the world" or something similar because they are exactly that. Among the logest-living organisms in the world/on Earth/in the ocean/of all benthic fauna. ResMar 02:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)