:Template:Did you know nominations/Acanthurus dussumieri
: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 Yoninah (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
{{DYK conditions}}
{{DYK header|Acanthurus dussumieri}}
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Acanthurus dussumieri|Acanthurus dussumieri}}
{{main page image|image=Acanthurus dussumieri 1.jpg|caption=Adult ornate surgeonfish}}
- ... that juvenile ornate surgeonfish are quite different in colouring from the adult fish (pictured)?
- ALT1:... that juvenile ornate surgeonfish are quite different in appearance from the adult fish (pictured)?
:* Reviewed: BorderIrish
5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 19:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC).
:* 16px The article is long enough and 5x expansion is verified and new enough. The article includes citations to reliable sources (well, one reliable source) for each paragraph. It seems neutral and I could not detect any signs of plagiarism. The hook is interesting enough and short enough. As for its source, it is in French and while I could not find a sentence where it says specifically that juveniles are "different", it does list {{tq|Le patron de couleurs des juvéniles|q=yes}} in a separate section for {{tq|Description du juvénile|Q=yes}}, so it quite obviously considers them different. So, in a mix of AGF and common sense, I consider it sourced. Although some shape difference is also mentioned {{tq|Le corps du juvénile dessine un ovale proportionnellement moins long et plus haut que celui des adultes.|q=yes}}, there is no mention that this is significant, so I think ALT0 is better and more accurate than ALT1. QPQ done, so this is ready to go. I added an image from the commons. It is free, used in the article and clear at 100px, so I see no reason not to include it. --Muhandes (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
