Template:Did you know nominations/Inyo shrew
- 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 Cielquiparle (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Inyo shrew
- ... that a new species of parasite was described from the feces of the Inyo shrew? Source: "Taxonomic summary Diagnosis: This species most closely resembles Eimeria suncus Ahluwalia, Singh, Arora, Mandel, and Sarkar, 1979, from the common house shrew (Suncus murinus) from India, but differs by having larger oocysts (22 x 19 vs. 20 x 15) and by the presence of a substieda body, which E. suncus lacks. Type host: Sorex tenellus Merriam, 1895, Inyo shrew, Museum of Southwestern Biology, Division of Mammalogy, NK 7991 (female), S. B. George #1059, 13 August 1983, MSB 53229. Type locality: USA. California: Mono Co.; 22.5 km N, 4 km W Bridgeport. Prevalence: Found in 1 of 2 (50%) S. tenellus from California. Site of infection: Unknown, oocysts recovered from feces" — [1]
- ALT1: ... that a new parasite was described from a certain shrew's feces?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Herman Sarens Soediro
- Comment: Unfortunately the parasite cannot be linked, as we lack an article on it.
Improved to Good Article status by An anonymous username, not my real name (talk). Self-nominated at 17:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC).
- Will claim for review. Coming within 24 hours Elias 🌊 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 17:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- ?
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Article-wise, no red flags stand out. Copyvio detector gives an ok score, the prose is readable, did some spotchecks (specifically the IUCN, C.H Merriam, and Hertel & Duszynski sources) that returned nothing suspicious, and QPQ has been carried out. Hook is cited, but ...
... I feel like it could use more tweaking to bring out the interestingness. The essence of the hook is "a parasite was discovered from X animal" which is not super catchy to non-specialists. If the "feces" bit is intended to be the main source of the hookiness, and if you think giving the full common name is unnecessary, this can be trimmed to "... that a new parasite was described from a certain shrew's feces?
" A bit vulgar, but DYK's probably seen worse :shrug: Elias 🌊 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 13:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, I added that as an alt. There's sadly nothing terribly interesting about this animal, so that could be the best option. An anonymous username, not my real name 15:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @An anonymous username.
All good to me now. Elias 🌊 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 11:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @An anonymous username.
