![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Contradiction with Red Knot
Someone, please edit both entries: they seem at odds with each other. The entry here contradicts to Wikipedia's entry about Red Knots: "In Delaware, a two-year ban on the harvesting of horseshoe crabs was enacted but struck down by a judge who cited insufficient evidence that the ban would help restore the Red Knot's numbers to justify the potential disruption to the fishing industry." But entry in this article claims that ban still exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterDepeche (talk • contribs) 04:04, 14 March 2011
COVID-19 Poor Attribution
The COVID-19 attribution is a misrepresentation of a marginal source. The source says:
"The debate is particularly critical today; the COVID-19 pandemic has fueled a huge surge of research into vaccines and potential COVID-19 treatments which rely on the use of LAL to ensure product safety. As demand for vaccines and other medical products increases, conservationists worry that without a rapid switch to rFC, strain on the American horseshoe crab and the other creatures that rely on them will only get worse."
It is at best a weaselly attempt to link the two in the source as it doesn't attribute the link to a source.
Then the Wikipedia article presents it as sourced fact which is at best a misrepresentation of the word "worry." Furthermore, it is presented as a debate, not as fact. 108.31.182.172 (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Either the representation of the source needs to be fixed in the Wikipedia article which, IMO, would be a pretty useless, hand-wavy sentence, or a better source needs to be found. 108.31.182.172 (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also the quote is not representative of the source. The quote is being used out of context. 108.31.182.172 (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I believe it would have been better to flag the the statement with something such as {{failed verification}} using the
|talkpage=
parameter or {{better source needed}} using the|reason=
parameter than to remove altogether a quote about which there is disagreement. - I believe the context of the quote is faithful to "Iovenko 2021". I accept that that the original source did not attribute that statement to a another source. Because of this, I have added the "Pavid 2020" citation to support the
Vaccine research and development during the COVID-19 pandemic
portion of the statement & "Eisner 2023" to support thehas added additional "strain on the American horseshoe crab
portion of the statement. - I think further discussion & consensus should now take place here before anyone attempts to remove the statement. Peaceray (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I believe it would have been better to flag the the statement with something such as {{failed verification}} using the
Placement of Feeding and Locomotion Sub-Categories
I don't expect anyone to respond to this (at least in awhile) since it seems like I'm the main editor of this page, I'm just curious about where to place these. Should they go in the Behavior section, or the Anatomy and Physiology section? RenaMoonn (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Drive By Notes
@RenaMoonn I was in the neighborhood and saw this went up for review, so I took a look. I am not conducting this GA review but I do have notes since I am worried this article might not be ready. Morphological stasis, Evidence from genomic sequencing, one sentence in Growth and development, and Sexual size dimorphism sections are all missing citations. The lead and images are not compliant with MOS (MOS:SANDWICH and the lead is both too brief and formatted strangely). In general, this article relies heavily on one sentence paragraphs. The two morphological overview images are redundant. Please keep in mind that for any article (but especially for GA), all information needs to be cited by WP:Reliable, WP:Secondary sources.
This isn't meant to scare you away. Pursuing GA status for a vital article right out of the gate is ambitious and I applaud it (I honestly wish we had more people working on vital articles). Since you are a newer user, I highly recommend reaching out to the Peer review program to help give you some pointers. Likewise, working with the Wikipedia:Good article mentorship to review GAs will also give you a better view of what criteria/mistakes to look for in your own work. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 15:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely gonna fix the four sub-categories you mentioned. Those were not my work, and due to them adding ~10,000 bytes of data, I assumed their citations would be satisfactory. Pissed that they couldn't be bothered to cite their sources.
- Also noticed how the lead is cut off by the taxabox on mobile devices and am trying to fix this.
- Still I have some questions. Mainly, I wanna understand your critique of the lead/synopsis. I'm confused why you think its formatting appears strange and am wondering about its ideal length. I'm also curious about what citations you think aren't reliable so i can correct them RenaMoonn (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- @RenaMoonn, I don't have any immediate concerns about sourcing reliability, save for me going in and reviewing source by source. I am just making a general comment, I haven't done any in-depth review. Per MOS:Lead, there is not expressed lead size but for a vital article of 80k bytes, I'd expect more than the current format of 2 line paragraphs. The lead is a summary, and thus, the longer the article the longer the lead (generally speaking). E.g. Spotted lanternfly is a GA I wrote a few years back that is a comparable length, the lead is 3 brief, but healthily sized paragraphs.
- Honestly, condensing into 3 hearty paragraphs aught to be enough. I'm not expecting a dissertation. You have plenty of information on description, medical use, and behavior to fill this out. Plus, repeated, small sentences in the lead is just aesthetically unpleasing to look at. The body of the article doesn't suffer from nearly as bad of an issue as the lead. I am bringing this to your attention because the lead formatting, combined with the lack of citations would more often than not get quick-failed, and trust me, I know how much that feeling sucks when the article gets failed. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 20:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)