Template:Did you know nominations/Deraeocoris brevis
- 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: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Deraeocoris brevis, Psylla pyri
[edit]( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that during its development, the predatory plant bug Deraeocoris brevis can consume up to 400 eggs and nymphs of the pear psylla? Source: "During that time, a single Deraeocoris nymph can eat as many as 400 pear psylla eggs or nymphs."
- Reviewed: Anvar Artykov
- Comment: Also reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Pitcairn (athlete) The second article has been rewritten from scratch, the previous version having been tagged as incomprehensible. Here is an example of the original text "In the juvenile stadiums they will cover of honeydew, to protective purpose; the eggs will cover too of honeydew and are of yellow-orange color, besides, are of pointed form to an extremity, while in the other there is a tail."
Created/expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 06:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC).
Hi Cwmhiraeth, review follows:
- Deraeocoris brevis: article created 19 April; article exceeds 1500 characters; article is well written and cited throughout to reliable sources; no copyright violations detected; hook is interesting and is cited in this article to a reliable source (that backs upo the claim); QPQ done; I thought the use of "bug" might have been a colloquialism but I see it is a technical name for members of the Hemiptera order! One minor suggestion is to change "...can consume about 400 eggs..." to "...can consume up to 400 eggs..." which better matches the wording of the source and (for me) seems to read better
- Pear psylla Article rewritten 19 April. In my view the previous article was, as you say, pretty poor and you work has been a vast improvement and effectively a total rewrite. However as the previous article was not a copyvio (that I could find) I don't think it is eligible per rule A4 "fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was". In my view total rewrites like these should be eligible but this rule seems to be written to specifically exclude them. Happy for input from a wider audience if desired. The hook can, of course, run just with the first article bolded - Dumelow (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Dumelow: I agree with your view that the pear psylla is not eligible, I just think it should be. I have removed it from this nomination which is now a single article hook. I have edited article and hook to use "up to 400" instead of "about 400". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Cwmhiraeth, I am in agreement with you on this. Happy to approve this as a one article hook - Dumelow (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Dumelow: I agree with your view that the pear psylla is not eligible, I just think it should be. I have removed it from this nomination which is now a single article hook. I have edited article and hook to use "up to 400" instead of "about 400". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
