Talk:Acanthinodera

A fact from Acanthinodera appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 December 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the larva of the beetle Acanthinodera cumingii can reach 13 centimetres (5 in) in length?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Acanthinodera cumingii.

Wikipedia

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acanthinodera cumingii[edit]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Female Acanthinodera cumingii.

... that the larva of the beetle Acanthinodera cumingii can reach 13 cm long? Source: "Todo su desarrollo ocurre en el interior del tronco. Allí crece hasta alcanzar unos 13 cm de largo." English: Its entire development occurs inside the trunk. There it grows until reaching about 13 cm long. ([1])
- ALT1:... that the larva of the beetle Acanthinodera cumingii feed on dead wood? Source: "A. cumingii pasa la mayor parte de su vida como larva, alimentándose de madera al interior de troncos en descomposición (Porter, 1933)." English: A. cumingii spends most of its life as a larva, feeding on wood inside decaying logs (Porter, 1933). ([2])

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dickie Dick Dickens

5x expanded by OtterAM (talk). Self-nominated at 16:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

This is an interesting article, expanded 5X within the last 5 days, therefore it is new enough and long enough. The article is neutrally written, and each paragraph has an inline citation. (a citation for the last sentence in "Conservation" would be nice, though). I find no close paraphrasing in the article. The main hook is interesting (the larvae is larger than either male or female adult). I don't find ALT1 compelling in any way, so I'd not use that. The hook is within policy regarding length/objectivity. The image is properly designated Creative Commons, so no issue there. The problem is that the hook is nowhere to be found in the article! You've sourced it in your nomination, why not add it to the article? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I've added the line you requested to the article under the section Life Cycle. OtterAM (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting real close here. My last concern has to do with the word "enormous" which is now contained in the sentence which is directly related to the hook. While I think 13cm makes the hook interesting, "enormous" is a superlative that might not really apply. What does the source use any superlatives regarding the size of the larvae? Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the word "enormous" in reference to the larva. On the related issue of size, I added a sentence to the article's opening stating that the beetle is one of the largest in Chile, with a reference to a Chilean Ministry of the Environment fact sheet. OtterAM (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is good to go. Hook is directly tied and accurate to the source, no further concerns. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]