Template:Did you know nominations/Amphiura filiformis

Amphiura filiformis

 * ... that a build up in numbers of the brittle star Amphiura filiformis in the North Sea may have been caused by eutrophication?
 * Reviewed: Lammas Ecovillage

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 19:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new enough, long enough and policy-compliant, no copyvios found. Hook is interesting and a suitable length. I'm going to AGF a bit on the source (I can't access the full article); the synopsis doesn't mention the North Sea directly but does suggest eutrophication as a factor in increased population. QPQ done. All looks good to me. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I'm having a couple of problems with this one. First, the article says the increase in numbers is largely attributed to: isn't it saying that most/much of the increase is in fact due to eutrophication, with some possibly caused by the overfishing of a predator of the star? Either the article is overstating things, or the hook is significantly understating. Also, there should be a citation no later than the end of the sentence that mentions the eutrophication since it's used in the hook per DYK rules, even if the same source is cited later in the paragraph. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Because " eutrophication" means an increase in nutrients I thought the position of the reference acceptable, but I have added an extra reference anyway. The source actually says "The main cause for the increase of A. filiformis is suggested to be eutrophication of the North Sea and resulting higher food supply for these suspension-feeding ophiuroids, as well as overfishing of their main flatfish predators". I have changed the wording in the article slightly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quote and for the additional cite. I could wish it wasn't only a suggestion, but given that "suggested" is the word used in the source, the hook's "may have been caused" is about as far as you can safely go. In fact, the article, even after your recent edit, seems a bit too definite under the circumstances. I think it's because I'm reading the article's "may have been partly caused" as only applying to the flatfish, while the second half of the sentence after the "but" appears more definite because that "but" can be read as canceling the "may have been": "but was mainly attributed to the eutrophication". If this can be clarified in the article—that is, the eutrophication is also only "suggested"—I think this will be ready to go. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. I have reversed the order of the sentence to put the eutrophication first. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Many thanks. Hook, article and source are now in agreement, and my concerns have all been addressed. Restoring approval per Yunshui above. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)