Template:Did you know nominations/Pachysentis

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 Edge3 (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Pachysentis

(

)

Pachysentis lenti

... that the species of Pachysentis use hooks (example pictured) to attach themselves to the host's intestines? Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6814649
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mari Shimizu

Improved to Good Article status by Mattximus (talk). Nominated by BorgQueen (talk) at 21:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Pachysentis; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Article

1. New – within the past seven days, the article has been listed as a good article. Nice job! Y
2. Long enough – Yes Y
3. Within policy – (NPOV, free of COPYVIO and plagiarism) Y
4. Inline citations provided Y

Hook

1. Format Y
2. Content – I hate to but must be a stickler for detail here. The source mentions the hooks on the proboscis of worms of this genus, and reports that the parasites are found in the intestine of the host, but I do not see where the source specifically states that these organisms employ the hooks to attach to the intestine. You and I both know that this is the function of the hooks, but it doesn't seem to be actually stated in the source. Is there another source that clearly articulates this? Or perhaps simply change the hook to something like: ALT1 ... that parasitic worms of genus Pachysentis have hooks on their heads (example pictured) and attach themselves to the intestine of the host? Would you be OK with this? DiverDave (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Grammar in hook is OK Y

Other

1. QPQ has been done Y

Overall

Comment: - @Mattximus:, @BorgQueen: please see above comment. Excellent article; DYK is good to go if this minor issue can be fixed. DiverDave (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@DiverDave: ah yes, I think ALT1 is better. BorgQueen (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

ALT1 will need to be approved by someone else. BorgQueen (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@BorgQueen: I would like to help, but I'm not sure how to proceed at this point. I have already done a fairly extensive search for a source that clearly states that the worm uses its hooks to attach to the intestine, and I have come up empty-handed. If we elect to go with the ALT1 hook, I believe the DYK already meets all the eligibility criteria and is good to go as is. Can I be of any further assistance, or will another editor step in and complete this DYK review? DiverDave (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@DiverDave: oh no worries, it's not urgent. Someone will come and review your hook. BorgQueen (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I also couldn't find this source, not even in the original description. I'm finding some things are considered implicit in these old scientific papers and are just not mentioned. Including the etymology of one of the species which is Latin for "unable to support itself, lying on the ground without putting forth roots", roots being the hooks I assume. I would love to include this in the article, but again it's implicit. Mattximus (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Alt1 needs a reviewer. BorgQueen (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

ALT1 appears sufficient to me. Taking the remainder of the review on good faith as only a review for ALT1 was requested. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)