Template:Did you know nominations/Cavu


 * 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: rejected by BencherliteTalk 01:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Cavu

 * ... that the scenic Cavu became the first place of schistosomiasis re-emerging in Europe in 2014?


 * Reviewed: Morteza Avini

Created by Wuerzele (talk). Self-nominated at 03:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC).

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 23:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No issues found with article, ready for human review.
 * &#x2713; This article is new and was created on 20:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * &#x2713; This article meets the DYK criteria at 2246 characters
 * &#x2713; All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
 * &#x2713; This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
 * &#x2713; A copyright violation is unlikely (2.9% confidence; confirm)
 * Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
 * No overall issues detected
 * &#x2713; The media File:Rivière-Cavo.jpg is free-use
 * &#x2713; The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 89 characters
 * &#x2713; Wuerzele has fewer than 5 DYK credits. No QPQ required. Note a QPQ will be required after 1 more DYKs.
 * Symbol question.svg Agreeing with the bot. Long enough, new enough, has no issues with policy; hook is verified by an inline citation; the image is free and adequately illustrates the topic; QPQ checks out. I would change the hook to mention it being the first instance since 1965.  Sounder Bruce  00:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, please go ahead.Wuerzele (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How about ALT1? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT1 ... that in 2014, people who bathed in the Cavu became infected by schistosomiasis, the first time the parasite had been acquired in Europe since 1965?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Looks good.  Sounder Bruce  00:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but am confused by the different figures cited for cases of people infected by the parasite. The lead said 120 as of 2014, but the text cites that figure as of 2016, with no source. (I changed the lead to "over 100".) Many figures are bandied about in the text. Could you add an inline cite to each one? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yoninah, the lead is not required to carry sources. This article's body content is sourced 100%. (you've reviewed my articles before, and know the quality)
 * The source for the figure of 120 infections as of 2016 is in the body (ref 4). It is in the sentence following the flag that you placed; FYI this is common practice on WP: If one mentions several facts in a row/ in a paragraph from one source, not every sentence needs to be followed by the source. I removed the citation needed flag and placed a semicolon between the 2 sentences to show they are connected. If you insist, please check the source and place the reference after the sentence you  questioned.Wuerzele (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you for cleaning up the figures and cites. I added an extra cite (ref 4) to that long sentence, because the facts on both sides of the semi-colon really didn't go together. I just have a question about the meaning of this sentence: As of 2016 transmission appears to be ongoing though, as a case acquired during the summer of 2015 has been reported. If the person acquired the disease in 2015, how does it qualify as a 2016 transmission? Yoninah (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, thanks for trying to move this DYK forward ! I assume you felt the need to compromise (?) - I do not understand why the DYK hook needed changing to ALT1. I replied to to "go ahead" and change the hook according to his opinion. He didnt reply, didnt discuss or argue his point, didnt go ahead and change the hook, even though I reminded him, that I responded. The ALT1 hook is longer and more difficult to read IMO, i.e. not so much in the spirit of DYK. I think the original hook was better and flowed better. The original hook also is completely correct; adding "since 1965" is unnecessary, because it is an "insider" detail, which is stated in the body for those who are interested in the history of the epidemiology of schisto in Europe (how may general readers care enough about the history of the epidemiology of anything?) Adding "since 1965" doesnt improve/change the correctness of the statement that the Cavu is the site of re-emerging schisto in Europe, a pretty profound story in public health. To add the detail "since 1965" makes the message neither stronger nor weaker. Hence, I would have tolerated it, if had felt strongly about it. Please all consider the original hook.Wuerzele (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There are several things wrong with ALT0. 1) Schistosomiasis is a disease; it can't emerge in a river, but it can affect people who bathe in the river. 2) Once you start talking of "first place" and "reemerging", you have to start thinking of when previous outbreaks occurred and the time scale involved. 3) It makes it sound as if schisto then appeared in other parts of Europe in 2014. 4) Using the word "scenic" is peacocky. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It was my understanding that a reviewer shouldn't be proposing the alternate hooks, so I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. As Cwmhiraeth just explained, there were several problems with the initial hook that were fixed in the ALT1 (either eliminated or corrected). It's better to be specific and correct rather than too broad.  Sounder Bruce  05:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Nominator was pinged back on August 24; it's been nearly three weeks since then. Marking for closure, though if the nominator takes action on the outstanding issues before this closes, the closure can be deferred. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes Ive been offline for a long while. it is summer. sorry, BlueMoonset. what exactly do you guys want? I've honestly ignored Sounder Bruce's message from august 9. his posts clearly show he does not really want to help, he is just finding faults, and at the same time doesnt remedy them with constructive proposal (he knows he can propose an ALT), and he has no expertise in the area that would justify them.
 * Cwmhiraeth schistosomiasis the disease has been reemerging from that river as a source.
 * 2) "reemerging" is the term used in the lit- when previous outbreaks occurred and the time scale involved doesnt need to be explained in teh DYK nor the lede. 3) Re: makes it sound as if schisto appeared in other parts of Europe in 2014- no it doesnt - this is the term used. 4) Using the word "scenic" is peacocky. i do not agree- it is a fact, many canals eg are not scenic ! you may replace it with beautiful if you like, if you find the appropriate ref. Wuerzele (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed as Wuerzele and I have different views over this nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I agree about dropping the word scenic, and I think ALT1 is long-winded. I propose the following: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

ALT2 ... that in 2014, the rivière de Cavu in Corsica hosted the recurrence of schistosomiasis in Europe?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg This article was new enough when nominated and is long enough. ALT2 is acceptable, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for ALT2, User:Cas Liber. I dont know why you call a 15 word ALT1 "long winded", compared to a 16 word ALT2 though.
 * Note, that the river is not the host, it's the snails in the river, so saying hosted is misleading. The river is the source, as i said previously okay, but not the host. Please ping for reply.Wuerzele (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It was Casliber, not me, who proposed the hook. Let's try again:
 * ALT3... that in 2014, the rivière de Cavu in Corsica was implicated in the recurrence of schistosomiasis in Europe? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * yes and I corrected to Casliber, as you saw. ALT3  supposes (implicated)- why not "the source of reemergence" - that says it straight and clear? Recurrence is for a shorter time interval in medical language like recurrent fever. I do not understand what is so difficult in accepting the established terminology of the sources?
 * This hook is so embattled- I have not seen anything like it, unless it was political, why? - this is natural sciences.
 * ALT4... that in 2014, the rivière de Cavu in Corsica became the source where schistosomiasis reemerged in Europe?Wuerzele (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg ALT3 and ALT4 need reviewing; I've struck ALT2 due to the objection to "hosted", so the prior approval has been superseded. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not purposefully trying to be awkward, but really the article does not have a sentence with an inline citation that states that people acquired the infection from bathing in the river. This is likely to be because the fact is not proven, and would be difficult to prove. In fact the cited statement that the snails tested did not harbour the parasite makes this less likely. It would be better to have a hook that was fully supported, for example starting "... that some people who bathed in the Cavu in 2014, ..." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, because, really, the article does have a sentence, the first in the section sanitary, with an inline citation that states that people acquired the infection from bathing in the river. so theres no need to hypothesize if acquisition is likely or not, or can be proven or not. and in fact the statement that the snails tested did not harbour the parasite does not make acquisition less likely and is fully compatible. It looks to me like you did not read the sources. Wuerzele (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is rather a waste of time because you have taken up one position and I have taken another and we are not likely to come to an agreement. I assume you are using #5 to support the hook (the DYK requirement is for an inline citation, so the third sentence in the "Sanitary issues" section has an inline citation but the first does not). This source states that the river contains snails; that the snails are capable of transmitting the infection; and that no snails tested contained the infective agent. It does not state that people bathing in the Cavu acquired the infection there. There is an association with the river but no causation has been proved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Seven weeks since the last comment. No resolution in sight.  Closing as rejected. BencherliteTalk 01:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)