425:
near-simultaneous reviews more compelling: it was more specific and identified more of the relevant review criteria.) I am well aware of how many DYKs
Cwmhiraeth has created: however, there is no magic in that number, as much as I respect Cwmhiraeth, just as there is no magic in LauraHale's noms, Dr. Blofeld's noms, or anyone else. Each article has to be judged on its own merits; Dr. Blofeld has about twice as many DYK credits as Cwmhiraeth, yet a number of his current nominations are in extended reviews because of issues, and will be the better for the scrutiny. Frequency of article nomination should not be a criterion in a DYK review. I think letting this sort itself out, even if it takes an extra day or two, is best.
499:
have one concern, however. Several of the sources I looked at indicate that the badger flea is (like most fleas, apparently) specific to its host. That is in conflict with the statement (in the lead section) that it has been found on other mammals. I couldn't see any information about other animal hosts for this flea on the
Distribution of British fleas website that is cited, but I probably don't know how to use that website properly. I did find a
367:
495:
204:
327:
381:
I was basing it on the fact that there was originally an approved review. Also, the second reviewer stated that they are not familiar with what should go in a flea article. Due to the original edit conflict, the first posted review passing it, and the second reviewer not even being sure if there was
242:
One question about the article itself: Both the "Description" and "Biology" sections assert that badger fleas are basically similar to other fleas, and conduct descriptions on that basis. The sources cited for these sections seem to be about only fleas in general, not badger fleas. Might there be a
498:
IMO, the information about fleas in general is appropriate to include in this article. Biology articles often repeat that kind of generic information. Moreover, this article has more information specific to the badger flea than some other biological species articles that passed DYK have had. I do
345:
I doubt there are many flea experts on DYK! Your concerns relate to the content of the article - whether it should include any general information on fleas or only information specifically on the badger flea. I think that this is not relevant to DYK and that the article meets the DYK criteria.
424:
No, I'm afraid that's not how it works. If you think it should be approved again, you approve it and wait for someone else to promote it. Here, as in all DYKs, as soon as a new reviewer calls into question an approval, that approval is no longer applicable. (I also found the second of the
263:
which mentions 2000 species. I could leave this information out of the article but it would be very hollow without it. I added it to provide some background for anyone interested in badger fleas who does not know much about fleas. I can always withdraw this nomination if you want.
461:
I really want to know if this is worth the hold-up. I accept BlueMoonset's decision, but it has not yet been explained how the article does not meet DYK criteria. Despite this, no one seems to want to step up and explain how it does or does not meet criteria.
440:
I never said that there was any magic in it nor did I say that the number of articles was the issue. I would have only said that the nominator created 677 similar articles without the second part of the sentence.
503:
that indicates that it sometimes is found on foxes. I'd like to resolve my curiosity about the sourcing for dogs, cats, etc., before this goes to the main page, but otherwise I think this is good to go.
258:
You are quite right. I could not find a description of a badger flea but used a description that applied to fleas in general. Similarly, the life cycle of fleas are very like each other. See our article
370:
Hook had been promoted without the above issue having been settled. A reviewer needs to decide whether the article does indeed meet the DYK criteria, and then some other person can promote it.
91:
177:
398:
545:
86:
243:
better source out there which at least supports the claim that badger fleas are substantially similar to other fleas in terms of body, life cycle, etc.?
382:
an issue, I promoted it. There can't be an issue if it isn't even sure if there even is an issue. So, unlike previously stated, it was approved.
36:
17:
279:
Gosh, I don't think the information should be removed... and I'd like to run the article under DYK. What do you think,
212:
44:
235:
Great hook. "Effort to reconnect" is a bit anthropomorphic but can slide. Fact can be pretty well verified from the
302:
There could well be, but I do not have access to the full text. I only wrote this article because I was working on
141:
284:
81:
236:
500:
280:
208:
111:
483:
430:
394:
375:
335:
292:
248:
116:
351:
311:
269:
191:
207:
Article is new enough, long enough and hook is suitable and contained in the article. Good to go.
29:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.
101:
524:
509:
479:
426:
371:
331:
288:
244:
40:
347:
307:
303:
265:
187:
330:
Could someone more experienced and/or knowledgeable about fleas give an opinion? Thanks,
467:
446:
406:
387:
366:
157:
539:
306:
where there was a red link for its flea. My original intention was to create a stub.
96:
520:
505:
478:
to stop by and take a look at it; I think she would be good at doing just that.
475:
162:
62:
494:
401:
while the second "reviewer" does not know about what should be in the article.
203:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
326:
463:
442:
402:
383:
121:
47:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page.
260:
283:? Cwmhiraeth, maybe there will be something useful at this
222:
Edit-conflicted review... not sure it's quite ready yet:
146:
519:
I figured out the database! No more issues from me. --
106:
194:). Self nominated at 06:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
8:
49:No further edits should be made to this page
166:jumps repeatedly in an effort to reconnect?
69:
72:
546:Passed DYK nominations from July 2013
7:
285:other Stewart & Macdonald paper
156:... that, when separated from its
24:
18:Template:Did you know nominations
493:
365:
325:
202:
66: 10:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify this page.
1:
470:) 04:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
397:. The nominator has created
378:) 03:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
527:) 21:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
512:) 21:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
486:) 02:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
449:) 14:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
433:) 06:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
409:) 03:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
390:) 03:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
354:) 05:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
338:) 01:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
314:) 08:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
295:) 07:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
45:Knowledge talk:Did you know
37:this nomination's talk page
562:
272:) 18:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
251:) 16:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
215:) 15:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
117:Find sources (notability)
92:Earwig's Copyvio Detector
41:the article's talk page
281:User:Thine Antique Pen
232:2293 characters r.p.s.
229:Created new on 7 July.
239:of the cited article.
107:A Simple Word Counter
87:Reviewer instructions
399:677 similar articles
393:I also based it on
112:Reviewers' template
209:Thine Antique Pen
195:
130:
129:
553:
497:
369:
329:
206:
185:
178:Music of Tokelau
70:
56:The result was:
34:
561:
560:
556:
555:
554:
552:
551:
550:
536:
535:
534:
304:European badger
153:
151:
147:Article history
135:
126:
102:Character count
67:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
559:
557:
549:
548:
538:
537:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
514:
513:
488:
487:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
435:
434:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
395:WP:COMMONSENSE
391:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
340:
339:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
297:
296:
274:
273:
253:
252:
240:
233:
230:
224:
223:
219:
218:
217:
216:
183:
182:
181:
180:
168:
167:
150:
149:
144:
142:Back to T:TDYK
138:
136:
134:
131:
128:
127:
125:
124:
119:
114:
109:
104:
99:
94:
89:
84:
78:
75:
74:
54:
53:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
558:
547:
544:
543:
541:
526:
522:
518:
517:
516:
515:
511:
507:
502:
496:
492:
491:
490:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
472:
471:
469:
465:
448:
444:
439:
438:
437:
436:
432:
428:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
389:
385:
380:
379:
377:
373:
368:
364:
363:
362:
361:
353:
349:
344:
343:
342:
341:
337:
333:
328:
324:
323:
313:
309:
305:
301:
300:
299:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
277:
276:
275:
271:
267:
262:
257:
256:
255:
254:
250:
246:
241:
238:
234:
231:
228:
227:
226:
225:
221:
220:
214:
210:
205:
201:
200:
199:
198:
197:
193:
189:
179:
175:
172:
171:
170:
169:
165:
164:
159:
155:
154:
148:
145:
143:
140:
139:
132:
123:
120:
118:
115:
113:
110:
108:
105:
103:
100:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
79:
77:
76:
71:
68:
65:
64:
59:
52:
50:
46:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
460:
184:
173:
161:
61:
57:
55:
48:
31:
28:
480:BlueMoonset
474:I've asked
427:BlueMoonset
372:BlueMoonset
332:groupuscule
289:groupuscule
245:groupuscule
186:Created by
163:badger flea
133:Badger flea
122:Hook length
73:DYK toolbox
348:Cwmhiraeth
308:Cwmhiraeth
266:Cwmhiraeth
188:Cwmhiraeth
287:? Pace ~
97:QPQ check
82:DYK check
540:Category
237:abstract
174:Reviewed
58:promoted
521:Orlady
506:Orlady
501:source
476:Orlady
160:, the
63:Allen3
16:<
525:talk
510:talk
484:talk
468:talk
464:SL93
447:talk
443:SL93
431:talk
407:talk
403:SL93
388:talk
384:SL93
376:talk
352:talk
336:talk
312:talk
293:talk
270:talk
261:Flea
249:talk
213:talk
192:talk
158:host
60:by
43:or
542::
504:--
196:.
176::
137:(
39:,
523:(
508:(
482:(
466:(
445:(
429:(
405:(
386:(
374:(
350:(
334:(
310:(
291:(
268:(
247:(
211:(
190:(
152:)
51:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
