Template:Did you know nominations/Saccostrea cucullata
- 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Saccostrea cucullata
[edit]- ... that the hooded oyster (Saccostrea cucullata) is Born 1778?
- Reviewed: Tracy Beaker (character)
- Comment: This rather enigmatic hook depends on the fact that the species was first described by Ignaz von Born in 1778. I don't think it should be rephrased to make a more grammatical sounding sentence not should the first letter of "Born" be in lower case.
Created/expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nom at 09:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Date, length, and sources fine. No overly close paraphrasing. No photo to evaluate. Hook cited. Second ref for hook non-English, AGF. I have no problem with the wording of the hook. Only one concern: When I went to match your facts with your sources, I ran into a snag about halfway into the article. Two examples: The first sentence of Distribution and habitat, and the second and third sentences of Biology all have citations indicating reference 4. But, they're all actually ref 7. I would just go through carefully one more time, ascribing the correct sources. Thank you for your article. Anne (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you look at reference 7 it says - " ... Saccostrea cucullata which is found throughout the Indian ocean and tropical western Pacific (Mitra and Choudhury, 1992)". This means the source for the information is Mitra and Choudhury's study, my reference 4.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your reasoning; I just don't necessarily agree with it. I didn't see any changes last time I checked. I'll comb through your article again this evening. Anne (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't muddled my references and I can't see what your problem is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that you muddled your references. I think that your sources are reliable, accepting #2 in good faith. I just disagree with your manner of doing them. As you mentioned to me in a previous communication, ref #4 is an "unsatisfactory url." Your source #7 cites "Mitra and Choudhury, 1992," which presumably correlates with your source #4, the difference in date presumably due to the bulletin's date of 1993. You used ref #4 twice. The first time, in "Distribution and habitat," the information was in your source #7, which in turn had an inline citation of ref #4. The second time, in "Biology," the info was again in source #7, although there was no inline citation in that material to #4. I assume that your use of the term "unsatisfactory url" also meant that source #4 was offline for you as well. Since your source #7 seems reliable, I just don't understand why you don't use that. If you extend your reasoning, then someone could use "unreliable" sources for an article, as long as the article references were the reliable ones copied from the "unreliable" source. Anyway, I still think that this is a good article with generally reliable sources.
Anne (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that you muddled your references. I think that your sources are reliable, accepting #2 in good faith. I just disagree with your manner of doing them. As you mentioned to me in a previous communication, ref #4 is an "unsatisfactory url." Your source #7 cites "Mitra and Choudhury, 1992," which presumably correlates with your source #4, the difference in date presumably due to the bulletin's date of 1993. You used ref #4 twice. The first time, in "Distribution and habitat," the information was in your source #7, which in turn had an inline citation of ref #4. The second time, in "Biology," the info was again in source #7, although there was no inline citation in that material to #4. I assume that your use of the term "unsatisfactory url" also meant that source #4 was offline for you as well. Since your source #7 seems reliable, I just don't understand why you don't use that. If you extend your reasoning, then someone could use "unreliable" sources for an article, as long as the article references were the reliable ones copied from the "unreliable" source. Anyway, I still think that this is a good article with generally reliable sources.
- I haven't muddled my references and I can't see what your problem is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your reasoning; I just don't necessarily agree with it. I didn't see any changes last time I checked. I'll comb through your article again this evening. Anne (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you look at reference 7 it says - " ... Saccostrea cucullata which is found throughout the Indian ocean and tropical western Pacific (Mitra and Choudhury, 1992)". This means the source for the information is Mitra and Choudhury's study, my reference 4.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
