Template:Did you know nominations/Sloggett's vlei rat
- 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) 23:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sloggett's vlei rat edit
... that Sloggett's vlei rat is sometimes found at densities of over 100 animals per hectare?Source: "Densities of over 100/ha have been estimated in suitable rocky habitats."
- Reviewed: Charles E. King
5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 09:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC).
Article has been expanded enough within the appropriate time frame. It is long enough, neutrally written, and cited to reliable sources. It is free of copyvios that I can find. Hook fact is accurate, in the article, and cited inline. It is supported by the quote provided (I cannot access the page itself in google books, so minor AGF there). Hook fact is not enthralling, but I feel it is interesting enough. Therefore, this is GTG. As an aside, and this is absolutely not a requirement for anything, I'd be curious to see some information about etymology. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
What does "100 animals per hectare" mean, exactly? Is that a big number? Small number? I think some context here would be appreciated. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Maury Markowitz: For a mammal it is a high density, and the source also thought this, stating "Densities of over 100/ha have been estimated in suitable rocky habitats." Any addition by me in the article of comparable figures for other rodents would likely be considered OR. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Typing "rodent density per ha" into Google revealed that mouse densities often exceed 1,000/ha, and it was trivially easy to find many examples in the field within the 50-100 range. Adding referenced material to provide context is the opposite of OR, and if you can find any examples of OR being used in the manner you claim here I'd be happy to wade in to those debates. But in the meantime we have a hook that implies this number is somehow interesting, and here you claim a source suggests the same, when it makes no claim of the sort whatsoever. That is what I would like to address. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the larger the species, the lower the density on the whole, and these are much bigger than mice. However, we aren't getting anywhere here so I have added more information to the article and propose ALT1
- Typing "rodent density per ha" into Google revealed that mouse densities often exceed 1,000/ha, and it was trivially easy to find many examples in the field within the 50-100 range. Adding referenced material to provide context is the opposite of OR, and if you can find any examples of OR being used in the manner you claim here I'd be happy to wade in to those debates. But in the meantime we have a hook that implies this number is somehow interesting, and here you claim a source suggests the same, when it makes no claim of the sort whatsoever. That is what I would like to address. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that young Sloggett's vlei rats have several adaptations that help them cope with severe cold in winter? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
New reviewer needed to check ALT1; I have struck the original hook due to the above disagreements. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- I am withdrawing my objections, please pass it as original reviewed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Confirming that the article is good to go. As a second reviewer, I re-did the whole process from scratch. No copyvios or close paraphrasing, sources check out, new enough, long enough. ALT 1 is interesting.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this, but reading the source on the hook fact, it states that these adaptations are possibly a response to the environment, rather than a fact. Yoninah (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you look at the page Adaptation, you will see that the word has a specific meaning in biology. The best adapted animals survive and breed, the least adapted leave fewer offspring. Does that answer your question? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)