Template:Did you know nominations/Tripedalia cystophora
- 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Tripedalia cystophora
[edit]... that the box jellyfish Tripedalia cystophora can "see" mangrove roots sufficiently well to avoid bumping into them?
- Reviewed: New New York (Glee)
Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 20:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC).
- I can't see in the source where it says it can see mangrove roots. Can you provide a sentence or page and paragraph? Also, is this a single experimental study? Maybe there is a secondary source where it says this that is not in the article? Also, does not "inhabit" edge of lagoons, title of article is big clue to inaccuracy of that statement. Please correct article before putting on main page. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC))
- The title's "opposite patterns" (I assume that's what's being pointed at) refers to the "opposite patterns of diurnal activity" of the two species discussed, and that the critter is found "on the muddy bottom of the mangrove lagoon" at night is in the first paragraph. In the day, they "were found swimming close to the surface in between the prop roots" "in the mangroves near La Parguera, Puerto Rico". So, this colony lives there and feeds there, day and night. I have tweaked the article a bit: the valid points got snowed under by the accusations. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- More failed verifications. I have not even checked the article. Please read the sources you use, I cannot find a single accurately attributed sentence. I have only reviewed half a dozen, but every one failed. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC))
- @AfadsBad:, can you confirm that you accessed [1] and determined that there are no statements in it about obstacle avoidance? @Cwmhiraeth: can you post some Fair Use quotes here to support obstacle avoidance? The cubomedusan eye is a fascinating window into early animal evolution and I would welcome a hook that can showcase its abilities. Thank you for writing these articles! Wnt (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that the box jellyfish Tripedalia cystophora feeds on the copepod Dioithona oculata which swarms in sunlit patches of water among mangrove roots? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Would you not just pick phrases, omit quotes, and rearrange them to write Wikipedia articles? These three sentences that support the hook are now a copyvio, "dense swarms," "shafts of sunlight," "illuminated /patches areas" from the one source. Copepods swarm in areas of the mangrove prop roots where the sunlight penetrates the canopy. Rewriting in your own words, plainly, would also make it easier to understand. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC))
- The sentence with the three things listed is "Dense swarms of these copepods form in the illuminated patches of water where shafts of sunlight shine through the mangrove canopy." The abstract says "The cubozoan medusa Tripedalia cystophora preys on dense swarms of the copepod Dioithona oculata in the mangrove prop-root habitat of Puerto Rico. The copepod swarms form in shafts of sunlight that penetrate the mangrove canopy during the day. T. cystophora are found primarily within the same illuminated areas, feeding heavily on the dense swarms of copepods." It is clear that there is no copyright violation here. Whether there is any stylistic criticism to be offered is another question - but in previous DYKs, after highlighting specific quotes and soliciting comments, I have passed considerably closer paraphrasing than this. While someone could have taken more time to be original, I see nothing actionable here. Wnt (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have now written a new article for the copepod and added it to this nomination, which is now a joint hook. What a fascinating relationship! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Failed verification for both articles. Pleased don't just pick a random, old fact, then inaccurately add it to an article. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC))
- If your comment was a little less cryptic, I might understand and respond to whatever point you are trying to make. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Your writing is so inaccurate, it is overwhelming. You picked one piece of information from a 1963 source and made it the single prominent means of differentiating this species? OR, indue weight, random misinformation. It's lenses, by the way. And is it the structure? This source does not say. Less cryptic? There is almost no relationship between the sources you cite and what you attach it to, undue weight, random fact, you change precise colors to avoid plagiarism, then plagiarize poetic writing, you misquote, you get the facts wrong. Use the source correctly, don't randomly weight the information in it, be accurate, write in a logical order, and I might have something from which to be less cryptic. Your article is an inaccurate badly joined assortment of misinformation from all over the place. Every sentence should be carefully checked. Rewrite in a readable or organized fashion, include accurate information, and I might be able to be less cryptic. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC))
- What is this 1963 source you keep mentioning? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your writing is so inaccurate, it is overwhelming. You picked one piece of information from a 1963 source and made it the single prominent means of differentiating this species? OR, indue weight, random misinformation. It's lenses, by the way. And is it the structure? This source does not say. Less cryptic? There is almost no relationship between the sources you cite and what you attach it to, undue weight, random fact, you change precise colors to avoid plagiarism, then plagiarize poetic writing, you misquote, you get the facts wrong. Use the source correctly, don't randomly weight the information in it, be accurate, write in a logical order, and I might have something from which to be less cryptic. Your article is an inaccurate badly joined assortment of misinformation from all over the place. Every sentence should be carefully checked. Rewrite in a readable or organized fashion, include accurate information, and I might be able to be less cryptic. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC))
- If your comment was a little less cryptic, I might understand and respond to whatever point you are trying to make. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
ok - I am rechecking this now. First up, in the Description section, I think we need to reword the third sentence - at first, I mistook it for having 3 tentacles in all. I would reword to, "From a single point on each of the four corners of the bell arise three tentacles, each on a pedalium or stalk." or somesuch. The velarium information about it constricting the bell actually comes from this page and should be noted as such. How did the distribution come from ref 2? I can't see and the map won't load. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking this on! I have made the wording change and added extra citations as suggested. With regard to the distribution, this has been changed by other editors since I originally stated in this version that "The range of Tripedalia cystophora includes the southern Atlantic Ocean[2] and Puerto Rica in the Caribbean Sea where its typical habitat is the mangrove-fringed edge of lagoons.[3]" I think that distribution was quite satisfactory, based on the MSOP including the species in its "Zooplankton of the South Atlantic Ocean", but AfadsBad disputed this and it was subsequently altered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Where is "Tripedalia cystophora is a diurnal species and swims by expanding and contracting the bell vigorously." from? I can't find it in the source at the end of the para.
- It is diurnal in that it feeds in sunlit areas and sinks to near the bottom at night. This is supported by #5 (Garm). The swimming is one way in which box jellyfish are different from other jellyfish. I could provide a reference for this in general and it is mentioned obliquely in #5 where it talks of swimming and "pulse rates" but not of contractions of the bell, or the sentence could be completely removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ah ok, well I think it best to remove it or if you want add a general sentence like "All box jellyfish swim by expanding and contracting the bell vigorously" and supply a reference for that. Either is ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, regarding this, does the Ruppert ref on that page mention this species? If not, then the sentence needs to read "All box jellyfish swim by expanding and contracting the bell vigorously" and can't mention Tripedalia. If it does then no change needed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ah ok, well I think it best to remove it or if you want add a general sentence like "All box jellyfish swim by expanding and contracting the bell vigorously" and supply a reference for that. Either is ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is diurnal in that it feeds in sunlit areas and sinks to near the bottom at night. This is supported by #5 (Garm). The swimming is one way in which box jellyfish are different from other jellyfish. I could provide a reference for this in general and it is mentioned obliquely in #5 where it talks of swimming and "pulse rates" but not of contractions of the bell, or the sentence could be completely removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I did this - I think your edit was probably not incorrect but cannot guarantee it with certainty, so aligned it better with the source.
- Where is "Tripedalia cystophora is a diurnal species and swims by expanding and contracting the bell vigorously." from? I can't find it in the source at the end of the para.
Tripedalia cystophora forages by allowing itself to sink slowly towards the bottom with its tentacles spread out around it to snare its prey - I couldn't see this in ref 5 either.- It is there, just above Figure 4, - "When foraging, the medusae lower their swim-pulse frequency for some seconds and sink through the water column with their tentacles stretched out." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Now rechecking Dioithona oculata - err, "Dioithona oculata has a translucent pear-shaped form" - I'd say "body" for "form" here as the latter sounds weird....furthermore is that sentence supported by ref 2? Any reason for leaving some of the places out from the ref here? Also that ref has the exact length ranges of F 0,62-0,90; M: 0,60-0,79, so why not put them in? In this sentence " Swarms were denser in June than in January and consisted of adult copepods and late-stage copepodid larvae." - why do we need to mention "copepod" - why not just say, " Swarms were denser in June than in January and consisted of adults and late-stage larvae." Otherwise material correlates to source. Interesting article. Size, hook and age check out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think I have dealt with all the points you mention above apart from the range. I don't like reeling off long lists of locations parrot-fashion and my present list already includes 21 locations. I don't think that I have missed any major ones. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree the list is long. I think it is pretty hard to assume which are major and which are minor, especially given we're talking about bodies of water. Could be grouped by oceans at least, but I think hard to just leave some out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think they are all there now and I have tried to group them appropriately. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Also, does the Ruppert page ref mention this species - if not we just need to make it copepods... etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree the list is long. I think it is pretty hard to assume which are major and which are minor, especially given we're talking about bodies of water. Could be grouped by oceans at least, but I think hard to just leave some out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
