Template:Did you know nominations/Chelymorpha alternans

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: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 17:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Chelymorpha alternans

(

)

A metallic neotropical tortoise beetle on a leaf

... that the neotropical tortoise beetle has a flagellum length up to three times the size of its body? Source: https://research.si.edu/publication-details/?id=51582
Page 746: "The flagellum (lower ejaculatory duct) of the male Chelymorpha alternans may exceed three times its overall body length, by any measure an exaggerated morphological characteristic."
- Reviewed:

Created by Luisss79 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Chelymorpha alternans; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Article is sufficiently new, long and cute, and looks very impressive, especially for somebody who has just started editing! I've checked a few sources manually for copyright violations, and they came out clean :). Imagine is clear at low resolution, and is appropriately licensed.
- The DYK line contains jargon (flagellum), which makes it less interesting for the mainpage. Is there a way to explain? The article itself also does not explain what a flagellum is, which is a shame. Typically, Wikipedia wants the lead of an article to be relatively easy to understand, with a bit more leeway for jargon in the body.
- The source statement is slightly different from the DYK statement (up to 3x vs more than 3x).
- The statement "Although 12 phenotypes are theoretically possible, only these 5 have been demonstrated in both a field and laboratory setting" does not seem quite supported by the source. It says 4 have been demonstrated in field and laboratory setting. If you count different, the 12 must also be different, right? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Luisss79: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Marking for closure due to a lack of response from @Luisss79:. This can be reopened if they return or if someone else takes over the nomination. Z1720 (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)