A fact from Pelanechinus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 December 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Pelanechinus is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marine life, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
This hook is written as if this is a characteristic of the species, while the article is about the genus, and the flexible test is probably the most well known characteristic for distinguishing the order. --BarbBarbBarb (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(From my talk page) I noticed your comment on the talk page of Pelanechinus where you stated that you thought the DYK hook was not good. It was not the original hook that I suggested and you can see the discussion that went on to decide on the wording of the hook here. A DYK hook is supposed to be interesting, and to most people, the flexibility of the test might be interesting. The fact that it applies to all the members of the order Echinothurioida does not make it any less true of individual members. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
You shouldn't mislead readers and use a hook that implies that this is a unique characteristic of the species when it is not. An encyclopedia should inform the reader, not mislead them. --BarbBarbBarb (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]