Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Badger flea

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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 Allen3 talk 10:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Badger flea

[edit]
(
)
  • ... that, when separated from its host, the badger flea jumps repeatedly in an effort to reconnect?

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 06:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC).

  • Article is new enough, long enough and hook is suitable and contained in the article. Good to go. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Edit-conflicted review... not sure it's quite ready yet:
  • Created new on 7 July.
  • 2293 characters r.p.s.
  • Great hook. "Effort to reconnect" is a bit anthropomorphic but can slide. Fact can be pretty well verified from the abstract of the cited article.
  • One question about the article itself: Both the "Description" and "Biology" sections assert that badger fleas are basically similar to other fleas, and conduct descriptions on that basis. The sources cited for these sections seem to be about only fleas in general, not badger fleas. Might there be a better source out there which at least supports the claim that badger fleas are substantially similar to other fleas in terms of body, life cycle, etc.? groupuscule (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You are quite right. I could not find a description of a badger flea but used a description that applied to fleas in general. Similarly, the life cycle of fleas are very like each other. See our article Flea which mentions 2000 species. I could leave this information out of the article but it would be very hollow without it. I added it to provide some background for anyone interested in badger fleas who does not know much about fleas. I can always withdraw this nomination if you want. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There could well be, but I do not have access to the full text. I only wrote this article because I was working on European badger where there was a red link for its flea. My original intention was to create a stub. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Could someone more experienced and/or knowledgeable about fleas give an opinion? Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I doubt there are many flea experts on DYK! Your concerns relate to the content of the article - whether it should include any general information on fleas or only information specifically on the badger flea. I think that this is not relevant to DYK and that the article meets the DYK criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Hook had been promoted without the above issue having been settled. A reviewer needs to decide whether the article does indeed meet the DYK criteria, and then some other person can promote it. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I was basing it on the fact that there was originally an approved review. Also, the second reviewer stated that they are not familiar with what should go in a flea article. Due to the original edit conflict, the first posted review passing it, and the second reviewer not even being sure if there was an issue, I promoted it. There can't be an issue if it isn't even sure if there even is an issue. So, unlike previously stated, it was approved. SL93 (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I also based it on WP:COMMONSENSE. The nominator has created 677 similar articles while the second "reviewer" does not know about what should be in the article. SL93 (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No, I'm afraid that's not how it works. If you think it should be approved again, you approve it and wait for someone else to promote it. Here, as in all DYKs, as soon as a new reviewer calls into question an approval, that approval is no longer applicable. (I also found the second of the near-simultaneous reviews more compelling: it was more specific and identified more of the relevant review criteria.) I am well aware of how many DYKs Cwmhiraeth has created: however, there is no magic in that number, as much as I respect Cwmhiraeth, just as there is no magic in LauraHale's noms, Dr. Blofeld's noms, or anyone else. Each article has to be judged on its own merits; Dr. Blofeld has about twice as many DYK credits as Cwmhiraeth, yet a number of his current nominations are in extended reviews because of issues, and will be the better for the scrutiny. Frequency of article nomination should not be a criterion in a DYK review. I think letting this sort itself out, even if it takes an extra day or two, is best. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I never said that there was any magic in it nor did I say that the number of articles was the issue. I would have only said that the nominator created 677 similar articles without the second part of the sentence. SL93 (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I really want to know if this is worth the hold-up. I accept BlueMoonset's decision, but it has not yet been explained how the article does not meet DYK criteria. Despite this, no one seems to want to step up and explain how it does or does not meet criteria. SL93 (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I've asked Orlady to stop by and take a look at it; I think she would be good at doing just that. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • IMO, the information about fleas in general is appropriate to include in this article. Biology articles often repeat that kind of generic information. Moreover, this article has more information specific to the badger flea than some other biological species articles that passed DYK have had. I do have one concern, however. Several of the sources I looked at indicate that the badger flea is (like most fleas, apparently) specific to its host. That is in conflict with the statement (in the lead section) that it has been found on other mammals. I couldn't see any information about other animal hosts for this flea on the Distribution of British fleas website that is cited, but I probably don't know how to use that website properly. I did find a source that indicates that it sometimes is found on foxes. I'd like to resolve my curiosity about the sourcing for dogs, cats, etc., before this goes to the main page, but otherwise I think this is good to go. --Orlady (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I figured out the database! No more issues from me. --Orlady (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Badger_flea&oldid=828903283"