Template:Did you know nominations/Ostreopsis
- 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 97198 (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ostreopsis
[edit]... that a marine species of dinoflagellate poisoned 209 Italian beachgoers in 2005?
- Reviewed: Nicola De Giosa
- Comment: This is a two article QPQ, used also for the Palythoa toxica nomination, from which this nomination has been split. The original nomination was made on 6 August, well within the seven-day requirement for this article, which was created on 4 August.
Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 13:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC).
New and long enough, within policy, Earwig detects no copyvios, QPQ done. The hook doesn't reflect the article; the cited study implicated Ostreopsis in the adverse health effects, but not strongly enough for the way the hook is currently worded. A hook that more closely follows the wording of the article/source would be fine. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): How about ALT1? Or do you object to the use of the word "poisoning"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that a marine species of dinoflagellate was implicated in the sickening of 200 Italian beachgoers in 2005?
- That looks better, but according to its article, poisoning involves chemical rather than just biological harm, although it's not cited to the best source. I'd have to look into what the technical definition of "poison" is, but saying they were sickened or became ill would be better. Also, the source says "about 200" instead of "209" unless I missed something, so I changed the hook to reflect that. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- I changed "poisoning" to "sickening". Strictly speaking, the effect of this organism is due to it containing the chemical palytoxin, so it's chemical poisoning coming from a biological organism. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't much care for "sickening" in this context. Could we have ALT2? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- I changed "poisoning" to "sickening". Strictly speaking, the effect of this organism is due to it containing the chemical palytoxin, so it's chemical poisoning coming from a biological organism. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- That looks better, but according to its article, poisoning involves chemical rather than just biological harm, although it's not cited to the best source. I'd have to look into what the technical definition of "poison" is, but saying they were sickened or became ill would be better. Also, the source says "about 200" instead of "209" unless I missed something, so I changed the hook to reflect that. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- ALT2 ... that a marine species of dinoflagellate was implicated when 200 Italian beachgoers became ill in 2005?
Looks good. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
