This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Amastra subsoror (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
This article, about an extinct Hawaiian land snail, is as clearly ready for FA status as any article I have ever seen. Per criterion 1b it "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context", as I cannot imagine anyone would want to know anything about this snail not found on the page. Per criterion 1e, it is extremely stable, having changed very little since August 2019. Finally, per criterion 4, it absolutely avoids "going into unnecessary detail". The other criteria are boring and can safely be ignored. Sdkb (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
>>BEANS X2t
09:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)An interesting article on an often overlooked mollusc. Some comments for consideration below.
All in all, a most worthy effort. I look forward to supporting following consideration of the above. KJP1 (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The article is adequately illustrated for its length. Both images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Consider adding alt text. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
While I was reading this article, I found a link to the category "Extinct gastropods", and noticed the article Maiden rocksnail. I was wondering: Is Maiden rocksnail even more worthy? Or should it be deleted altogether, since Wikipedia requires multiple sources, and the maiden rocksnail is only mentioned non-trivially in one source? Khemehekis (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)