Template:Did you know nominations/Ochetostoma erythrogrammon


 * 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 feminist (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Ochetostoma erythrogrammon

 * ... that the burrow of the spoon worm Ochetostoma erythrogrammon may be shared by flatworms, scale worms, molluscs, pea crabs, snapping shrimps and copepods?
 * Reviewed: Sophie Karthäuser

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 07:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC).


 * The article was created within last7 days: Green check.svgY
 * The article is long enough: Green check.svgY
 * The hook is interesting: Green check.svgY
 * The hook is referenced: Symbol question.svg
 * The hook is below 200 characters: Green check.svgY
 * No (0%) copyvio found with Earwig's tool: Green check.svgY
 * The article follows most other important policies: Green check.svgY
 * QPQ: Green check.svgY
 * Symbol question.svg Article is nearly good to go. But I think two essential points of clarification are needed. The cited source is a 33-page academic article. Either the citation itself, or the template should be used to clearly indicate the exact page or pages the commensal names are referenced on. The lack of any wikilinks from common names of the commensals used in the hook make it very difficult to confirm accuracy of that hook. For example, "pea crab" is linked within the DYK article to a page about Pinnotheres pisum, but the cited source does not indicate this taxon is a commensal of the DYK species, O. erythrogrammon as far as I can tell. In fact, P.pisum is not mentioned in the cited source at all, except in the references). The taxonomic names and wikilinks used within the article need to have more precise referencing to the source, and be properly wikilinked to target pages at the most appropriate taxonomic level, and the common names used in the hook needs to be similarly wikilinked to the correct level of groups, too, before this is ready to go. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. I have reduced the page range of the relevant source. Most of the wikilinks in the article go to the most relevant Wikipedia article, but I have changed the link for the pea crabs. I don't intend to wikilink the list of commensals in the hook because that would give a "sea of blue" and readers can go to the article if they want to know more about them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg OK, now good to go. After a complex search of the citation, I can confirm all taxonomic groups wikilinked by common group name are indeed listed in the article. The latter could - and indeed should - be enhanced by naming the individual commensal species by the scientific names, even if left as redlinks. However, that doesn't stop this DYK from now meeting the criteria. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)