Template:Did you know nominations/Madracis auretenra


 * 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 Victuallers (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Madracis auretenra

 * ... that the coral Madracis auretenra reproduces readily by fragmentation?


 * Reviewed: Shooting of Brian Moore

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 11:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Long enough, new enough, and appears free of close paraphrasing. Interesting hook, within format parameters. QPQ done. But I think something should be clarified (if not necessarily in the article, then here): some sources including the hook source predate the split between this species and M. mirabilis, and describe the species they study as M. mirabilis. How do we know that these sources are really about M. auretenra and not the species on the other side of the split? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point, and it is difficult to find anything hookable in the article that can be definitely related to M. auretenra. So I have added an extra paragraph to the article, struck the original hook and propose ALT1 instead. So why did they use this coral for the study? Probably because of the ease with which it propagated after fragmentation!
 * ALT1 ... that the coral Madracis auretenra has been used to study the likely effects of ocean acidification on corals? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Now I'm curious about this Wells 1973 paper that your new hook source cites in the title but not in the references. But that's irrelevant to this review. Ok, hook is now properly sourced. There's still a question of how much of the other article content is based on sources that confuse the two species, but I'll assume per AGF that you've been diligent in trying to keep that straight. Otherwise, good to go, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. M. mirabilis is said to be a deep water species and I think it is likely that the vast majority of the previous studies referred to M. auretenra. If I had realised what a can of taxonomic worms I was about to open, I wouldn't have written the article in the first place. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)