Template:Did you know nominations/Myopia in animals

Myopia in animals

 * ... that rhinoceroses (pictured) have superior hearing and can smell better than they can see with their eyes?
 * Reviewed: Thirty-nine reasons why I am a vegetarian
 * Comment: Sorry we are late in nominating this and the article below this, as we forgot about them. Hope they will be accepted.

Created/expanded by Dr. Blofeld (talk), Nvvchar (talk). Nominated by Nvvchar (talk) at 02:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Changed colloquial "rhinos" to formal "rhinoceroses". Tweaked hook. Willing to AGF lateness (my own article was late, heh). Article is well-sourced enough, 5x expansion confirmed, but I'm concerned about the structure. To put it simply, the article is extremely vague and the content meanders. There are a lot of highly specific examples (some of them bordering on the irrelevant, e.g. the mention of the pet dog), but almost nothing to tie them together. In one sentence, you're talking about horses, the next it's all about rhinos, followed by Central Park animals. Can you please rearrange the sections so that the information flows more evenly? Start with more generalized information about the subject before giving specific instances. Always be aware of the context. There are also a few sentences that need clarification (e.g. what is a "phakic dog" exactly?) or rewriting (the quoted parts need to be reworded for clarity). There are also some factual errors. For example, Triceratops are from the Late Cretaceous, which is almost a hundred million years after the Jurassic. The hook also features an easter egg link. I suggest the alt below.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  08:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT1: ... that rhinoceroses (pictured) are nearsighted but have superior senses of hearing and smell?
 * P.S. Dr. Blofield has retired? :( -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  08:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Tags have been referenced, wherever marked. Text has been shifted as suggested in two new sections. Phakic - phakic refers to an eye having a crystalline lens or an intraocular lens implant. Text after 'Triceratops' "are from the Late Cretaceous" has been deleted. Changed the quoted parts which have been reworded to "Rhinoceros bulls swing their heads during fights, walk stiff, and deliberately posture with raised forequarters." The revised ALT1 hook is fine and acceptable.-- Nvvchar . 16:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I'm sorry but I'd still decline it at this state. I still see too many problems. The largest of which, as I said earlier, is that there's no real sense of structure. No coherence. Reading it is like reading a series of abstracts. Sure they're all dealing with a particular topic, but how do they relate to each other? The effect is even more jarring because the paragraphs and sections are subdivided arbitrarily. How, for example, is bending the head and neck relevant to experiments on macaques? They seem to be two completely different studies, so why are they on the same paragraph? The article does not answer the questions of what myopia in animals is, what causes it, how prevalent is it, where does it occur naturally, where does it occur pathologically, how may it be treated, how does it relate to myopia in humans, etc. Without those, the article is better off merged into the main Myopia article. The lead itself reflects that problem. It's just basically saying that "some animals have myopia." Apologies if all of this sounds harsh, but I don't think it's "DYK-ready" at this point. I won't protest if someone else disagrees though.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  21:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. And I do understand what "phakic" means, what I don't understand is why it needs to be specified, after all dogs are phakic by default. As for Triceratops, I recommend that it be removed completely. I do not have access to the source, but I strongly suspect it's unreliable. The characterization of Triceratops as nearsighted is from the movie Jurassic Park, ironically in comparison to rhinos. There is not enough fossil material to declare Triceratops as particularly nearsighted, so referring to it as if everyone knows that Triceratops are nearsighted is unjustifiable. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  21:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You are right about the reference to Triceratops. I have made the necessary changes in the article as suggested just above under PS. But I can not find references to other issues suggested by you regarding myopia. If you can kindly suggest some book or other authentic references then I can add it.-- Nvvchar . 05:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg This nomination has bee hanging around for a while. It meets all the DYK criteria of newness, length and sourcing. The image has a GNU Free Documentation License. I do not believe there is a DYK requirement for the content of an article to be comprehensive or laid out in any particular way and I consider this nomination is ready to go with ALT1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)