Template:Did you know nominations/Haplochromis vonlinnei
- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Haplochromis vonlinnei
[edit]
- ... that since the Nile perch was introduced into Lake Victoria, the cichlid Haplochromis vonlinnei (pictured) has become "Critically Endangered" and may be extinct?
- Reviewed: Andrew Bolon
5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC).
- The article says "moderate-sized, slender cichlid", yet the description (ref. 3) calls it "moderately large sized, moderately slender". Someone with more clue than me about descriptive biology really needs to go through the species description with a fine-toothed comb and compare statements.
- Hello AfadsBad, using an IP identity again I see. I guess there are not many DYK regulars with more clue than you on this subject. The source description is very technical and this is the best I could do to extract the salient points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Before this makes the main page it's essential that the description be checked. You yourself say that you are dealing with highly technical material and are feeling out of your depth. This is a call for peer review - out in the real world it is done not to check for truth but to prevent obvious falsehood from getting into print. If DYK can't muster a subject expert then it shouldn't be touching this kind of material. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- What you say is not relevant to the DYK nomination process. Any problems with the description should be discussed on the article's talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- There is a continuous stream of complaints about inaccuracies in DYK articles. I think it's fair to ask for a fact check for anything that makes the main page. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- What you say is not relevant to the DYK nomination process. Any problems with the description should be discussed on the article's talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Before this makes the main page it's essential that the description be checked. You yourself say that you are dealing with highly technical material and are feeling out of your depth. This is a call for peer review - out in the real world it is done not to check for truth but to prevent obvious falsehood from getting into print. If DYK can't muster a subject expert then it shouldn't be touching this kind of material. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hello AfadsBad, using an IP identity again I see. I guess there are not many DYK regulars with more clue than you on this subject. The source description is very technical and this is the best I could do to extract the salient points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also, near the end of the article: "Another factor that may affect any remaining fish is the lower water quality and diminished clarity of the water which may make mate recognition more difficult". The Red List (ref. 1) says "It is also potentially threatened by hybridization due to decreased water transparency (on account of eutrophication and erosion leading to increased sedimentation and runoff) interfering with mate recognition visual cues." That's not quite the same.
- Not much different though. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia should reproduce its references accurately, not mostly. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is a trivial point and is not relevant to the DYK process. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- "lower water quality" != "increased turbidity". There are plenty of mountain streams with excellent water that run turbid because of erosion. The reference doesn't even talk about lower water quality. The statement about lower water quality is wholly made up. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Water quality" is often given a more specific meaning than I intended so I have removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- "lower water quality" != "increased turbidity". There are plenty of mountain streams with excellent water that run turbid because of erosion. The reference doesn't even talk about lower water quality. The statement about lower water quality is wholly made up. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is a trivial point and is not relevant to the DYK process. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia should reproduce its references accurately, not mostly. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not much different though. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- The introduction says "The population of the species has declined due to the introduction of the Nile perch" when in fact this species was rare already in the 1980s - it is known from only five specimens caught in that time - and is very likely extinct.
129.110.242.8 (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- As it states in the article, the Nile perch was introduced into Lake Victoria in the 1950s. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- The introduction should mention the salient points. I think it's salient that this fish hasn't been seen since the 1980 and it's more likely than not that is is extinct. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- It already said that in the body of the text but I have added it to the lead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- The introduction should mention the salient points. I think it's salient that this fish hasn't been seen since the 1980 and it's more likely than not that is is extinct. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- As it states in the article, the Nile perch was introduced into Lake Victoria in the 1950s. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Article created by Ensignricky on November 15, 2013. Expansion by Cwmhiraeth began on May 20, 2014, text only: 2,431 characters as of now. Image licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported. Hook supported by reliable third-party source. Quite interesting. Good to go as is. Poeticbent talk 22:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
What? In the article says "curved teeth", yet the description (ref. 3) talks about "strongly curved teeth". Also, the article says this fish is "grey", but the description says "A ripening male had the snout and cheek brownish grey, the gill cover and the rostral part of the flank golden brown, and the ventral side, belly, caudo-ventral part of the flank and the caudal peduncle blackish." Please give this the full treatment, a thorough fact-check against the description. 129.110.92.15 (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Strongly curved teeth" are "curved teeth". I have slightly changed the details of colouring. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Strongly curved teeth" aren't necessarily the same as "curved teeth". Ref. 3 says that this species is distinguished from a similar one precisely through the stronger curvature of teeth. Besides, as a rule the pharyngeal teeth are curved, they sit in the throat and point backwards to prevent prey from escaping. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Strongly curved teeth" are "curved teeth". I have slightly changed the details of colouring. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome to continue your discussion on improving the article because that's how Wikipedia works, but the article (along with the hook) meet all DYK criteria already, and is ready to go along with the image. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 14:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- What happened to factual accuracy, to the core policy of verifiability? The article says in the introduction that the fish is "brownish in colour", a few paragraphs further down in the description it is "a greyish colour", and then there is ref. 3, the original description quoted above. That can't all be right at the same time. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- That sentence in the lead was there from before I expanded the article. If you see any other anomalies, please make the appropriate changes yourself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- The above issue about brown vs grey colouring has been resolved; i.e. the article now mentions only grey colouring. In the interests of clearing the review backlog and cutting through unnecessary delays, I am confirming the review by User:Poeticbent above (taken on trust) that this nom is good to go. (To admin: please ignore further discussion about colouring of fish and other matters of potential article improvement which do not affect the DYK review.)--Storye book (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- That sentence in the lead was there from before I expanded the article. If you see any other anomalies, please make the appropriate changes yourself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- What happened to factual accuracy, to the core policy of verifiability? The article says in the introduction that the fish is "brownish in colour", a few paragraphs further down in the description it is "a greyish colour", and then there is ref. 3, the original description quoted above. That can't all be right at the same time. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)