Talk:Monstrilloida

Did you know nomination

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 Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Adult Monstrilla sp.

• ... that conspicous, shrimp-like adult copepods of the order Monstrilloida (example pictured) do not have mouth parts and do not feed at all, following their sole purpose to find a mate in time?
  • ALT1:... that the free-living, non-feeding adults of the copepod order Monstrilloida (example pictured) develop from endoparasitic larval stages, their only purpose being reproduction?

• Comment: Expanded from a rather short, stub-like previous version, inserting numerous references and images

Created/expanded by Bubbleleg96 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC).

• The readable prose does not appear to be a fivefold expansion to qualify for DYK yet. The word count was 1206 before expansion, and is 5379 after expansion. This is a difference of 851 characters. Flibirigit (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough: - too short, readable prose does not include lists and infoboxes

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - see maintenance tags
• Neutral: - see maintenance tags
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - ? Several areas highlighted by by Earwig tool

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - ?
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - hook contains subjective wording

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Hooks contain subjective wording such as "conspicuous" and "free-living" which are mentioned nowhere in the article. Clarifications are needed. Nominator has not edited in over a month and is unlikely to return in the near future. Article has multiple issues to be resolved I recommend closing this nomination if nodody else is willing to adopt it. Flibirigit (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a few comments on the above: I checked the prose count, so it makes sense to remove the DYK-nomination, I seriously do not know how to further expand the article without repeating content. As for plagiarism, most of it links to a presentation about copepods on LinkedIn, which probably got its fair share of content from a previous version of this article. However, I tried to paraphrase most of the passages involved. In general, it is very hard to use scientific publications correctly in Wikipedia, especially with a topic where there are only a small amount of those, I feel. I don't want to plagiarize and copy anything, but at the same time it is very dull to read everything in quotation marks. Regarding hooks， "free-living" is mentionend various times in the article. What I mean with that is that they are planktonic and not sessile parasites like the larvae. As for conspicous, that may be subjective, but aren't many hooks pretty subjective? Anyway, thanks for the review. Next time I will try to expand five-fold. Bubbleleg96 (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Marked for closure as per comments above to withdraw nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

References