Talk:Sturddlefish

Did you know nomination

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 SL93 (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

An example of a sturddlefish hybrid

• ... that scientists accidentally created sturddlefish (pictured), a hybrid of two endangered fish species which had been evolutionarily divergent for about 184 million years? Source: CNET (This weird-looking fish is a hybrid offspring of the American paddlefish and Russian sturgeon, both critically endangered.) and NYTimes (Their last common ancestor swam during the age of the dinosaurs, and the two have been evolving independently, on opposite sides of the planet, for over 184 million years).
  • ALT1:... that the sturddlefish (pictured) is a hybrid of two endangered fish species which scientists accidentally created? Source:
  • ALT1A:... that scientists accidentally created a hybrid of two endangered fish species, called the sturddlefish (pictured)?
  • ALT2:... that the sturddlefish is a hybrid of two species which have been evolutionarily independent from each other for twice as long as humans have from mice? Source: NYTimes (which makes them nearly twice as evolutionarily diverged as humans and mice.) - not in article or cited yet but if people think this is the best hook for a DYK I can add it into the WP article easily.

• Comment: The image obviously would need to be cropped - which is acceptable as it's under a CC-BY 4.0 license - to only show one of the hybrid animals. My understanding is QPQ not necessary as this is only my second nom/created article. I'll also ping the user who created the original stub (User:Btyner) for their input (and for credit if it is normally given for the original stub creation).

Created/expanded by Berchanhimez (talk) and Abductive (talk). Nominated by Berchanhimez (talk) at 16:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC).

• removed signature which was only necessary for pings and didn't actually make it into the comments field bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• starting review Mujinga (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: I like ALT1 the best I think, it's the most catchy. Also ALT0 is good. ALT2 is a bit wordy currently and would need the citation, as stated, so I'm fine with taking that one out. For ALT0, there needs to be a NYT citation on the "184" sentence and CNET on the "endangered" sentence per "Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact". For the image, can you crop it the way you want it and then I can approve its licensing? I'm a bit confused as to which bit you'd use. Then (pictured) can be added to the hook as well. Per Yoninah pointing this out on a recent nom of mine, the article is currently an orphan and should be linked from other wikipedia articles. Mujinga (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mujinga: Thanks - I've cropped it to only show one and updated the width to be 160 based on the instructions in the template. I've also added the inline citations as necessary for hook ALT0 and ALT1, so feel free to take your pick. I will work on linking it from other articles as well, although that may take time. I also copyedited ALT0 to include the word "accidentally" (can change to "inadvertently" if you feel it's better). I agree ALT1 seems to be the best (short sweet and to the point), but the wording just didn't sound right to me hence why I didn't have it as the primary. Please feel free to copyedit it if you can come up with a better wording or feel it could be improved further. The only other comment I have is it may be prudent to link "hybrid" to hybrid (biology) if that's permitted in DYK hooks - I seem to remember something about only the bolded (primary) article being linked in a hook, but I can't remember now so I'll leave it up to the reviewer(s) and/or admins who add it. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: Great! I've struck most of my concerns and added the hybrid link for you, I was actually looking for other links to add but didn't think of that one. I can't edit much more myself or else I'd be creating the hook and then I wouldn't be able to approve it. I would suggest maybe doing ALT1 the other way around? That is to say starting with "scientists accidentally created ...". Adding a link from another page could be easy, maybe a see also on liger? I'll leave it with you then for a bit and we can see if Abductive or Btyner have an opinion on the hooks in the meantime. Mujinga (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I've switched it around as alt1a, and I'll work on links later this evening. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mujinga: It doesn't look like others will be showing up to opine - if you'd still like to wait for someone else to opine that's fine, but otherwise if there's no other issues I have no further input to provide. Just pinging you in case you're doing this for one of your QPQs you can get it out of the way if you see no further issues. Thanks. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: Yes I agree and comments can of course be given at later stages as well. Thanks for putting links in the article, nice working with you! I like ALT1A the best (I've struck ALT1) and ALT0 is also good to go. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Naming of article

Per ghits for "sturdlefish" (one d) which number about 300-400, and ghits for "sturddlefish" (two d) which number about 33k, the article was created with the appropriate name per WP:COMMONNAME. I recently undid a name change in the lede sentence without an article move, and added a comment to discuss here if anyone has a reason that a name only used 1% of the time on the internet should be the article name. Thanks bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• If the original scientific article had given the name as one or the other, that would have been helpful. Since they did not (unless I missed it somewhere), the most common ghit is best for now. Sturdlefish can be a redirect. Abductive (reasoning) 23:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Article is now mostly error-free

In spite of some early hiccups with technical language, the article is now mostly free of egregious errors. I suggest that any user thinking of making changes carefully search on Wikipedia and elsewhere any terminology that they do not recognize, and probably terms that they think they recognize too. Abductive (reasoning) 23:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Serious error in caption?

The image caption reads as follows: "Yearlings of A. gueldenstaedtii, (a) and (b), and their hybrids with P. spathula: (c) typical LH (larger genome) hybrid, (d) typical SH (smaller genome) hybrid.". As this is a paraphrasing from the original paper, it should be without issues. However, this caption appears to be incorrect: (a) is A. gueldenstaedtii and (d) appears to be P. spathula, with (b) and (c) as the hybrids. Several of the linked articles agree; while the actual wording of the original caption from the paper itself is distinctly confused: "(a) Yearlings of A. gueldenstaedtii and (b) their hybrids: (c) typical LH hybrid, (d) typical SH hybrid of P. spathula." I have edited the caption, but if I am mistaken, or anyone has any further insight on the matter, they should register it here. 86.188.72.201 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)