Template:Did you know nominations/Sepia australis
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sepia australis[edit]
- ... that the prevalence of cannibalism in the southern cuttlefish Sepia australis from Southern Africa increases from west to east? Source: "The only cephalopod identified in the diet was identified as S. australis, in both years. The incidence of cannibalism was greatest in the east, more than double that in the other two regions" [1]
- ALT1:... that despite its tasty flesh and abundance the southern cuttlefish Sepia australis is currently of little interest to fisheries? Source: "Its relative high abundance and tasty flesh may make it the target of fisheries in the future (Reid et al. 2005). It is not currently fished commercially " (and [2]
5x expanded by Quetzal1964 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC).
Article long enough, and has been expanded 5x (was redirect previous to Quetzal1964's work). Article reads as neutral, passes Earwig's [3]. References look good (assuming one reference at the end of a paragraph covers the full paragraph, as is common in research publications). One ref is hosted on Wordpress, but it looks good, and the scientist has other publications: [4] (available here), [5], etc.
- I prefer hook #1. Just make sure to bold the mention of Sepia australis. = paul2520 (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote ALT1, but do not see the parallel between the hook fact about "tasty flesh" and the way it's worded in the article: perfectly edible species. Yoninah (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- The original source said "Its relative high abundance and tasty flesh may make it the target of fisheries in the future" which I reinterpreted as "perfectly edible" in the article. Happy to change the hook to "despite being perfectly edible and abundant the southern cuttlefish Sepia australis is currently of little interest to fisheries?" Quetzal1964 (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- But "perfectly edible" is not a good paraphrase of "tasty". I suggest putting "tasty flesh" in quotes in the article and hook. Yoninah (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- Okay so ALT1 now reads "despite its "tasty flesh" and abundance the southern cuttlefish Sepia australis is currently of little interest to fisheries?" Quetzal1964 (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- But "perfectly edible" is not a good paraphrase of "tasty". I suggest putting "tasty flesh" in quotes in the article and hook. Yoninah (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- The original source said "Its relative high abundance and tasty flesh may make it the target of fisheries in the future" which I reinterpreted as "perfectly edible" in the article. Happy to change the hook to "despite being perfectly edible and abundant the southern cuttlefish Sepia australis is currently of little interest to fisheries?" Quetzal1964 (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
