Template:Did you know nominations/Spotted wobbegong

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Spotted wobbegong[edit]

(
)
Spotted wobbegong
Spotted wobbegong
Mouth and tentacles of the spotted wobbegong
Mouth and tentacles of the spotted wobbegong

5x expanded by SkyGazer 512 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC).


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I have struck ALT0 and ALT1 as (1) "DYK that sharks bite" is not hooky & (2) not supported by the authority cited in the nomination which says "Much has been made of the danger of this and other wobbegongs to people, often to the exclusion of everything else of their life history. ... Several unprovoked and provoked bite incidents on people ... by Australian wobbegongs (probably including this species) ... have been reported in the literature, but it is often difficult to determine which species was involved or what the precise circumstances were that led to the incident."

I am not sure whether "wander" is the best word for ALT2. Given the variety of prey, swim, crawl, scuttle etc are all wrong as well. Maybe "go"? Otherwise it could be reworded, identifying the tentacles as being on its mouth. With ALT2, perhaps a different picture clearly showing the tentacles might work better, eg File:Orectolobus maculatus sydney.jpg Find bruce (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Find bruce: Thank you for taking the time to provide such a thorough review. Will respond to each point individually:
  • I'm not trying to be dense here, but what specifically needs to be fixed in the Bite section before this is DYK-ready? I went based on what the sources said and I didn't see any major contradictions between them. Overall, the sources seem to agree that the species is usually docile with humans but has been known to bite them, sometimes unprovoked. I'd be appreciate more specific feedback.
  • How do you know that all of the attacks recorded under the International Shark Attack File were not fatal? I could add that information with a source, if that's what you're wanting.
  • Yes "that sharks bite" isn't hooky, but considering how this species is known to attack unprovoked and cause severe wounds, do you not think it's hooky that any guest 10 years or older can swim freely with them in an amusement park? I personally was very interested and surprised when I found that out.
  • Good point about the book not being completely sure that the unprovoked attacks were by the spotted wobbegong in particular. But this source (which is used in that section of the article) says clearly, There are multiple accounts of unprovoked attacks on divers well above the bottom, referencing this. So could we use that source instead for the unprovoked part? The book and the ABC ref should support the rest of the hook.
  • I've changed "wander" to "go".
  • I've added the picture you suggested as an alternative, but kept the other one as it is a better overview of the shark's body and can be seen a bit clearer, so it might be better to go with that one if we end up using a hook other than ALT2.
Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry SkyGazer 512 I was probably being a bit obscure - I have made the minor changes to the section, let me know if that makes it clearer, or change it if you think it is inaccurate. I have added the reference to the Shark Attack File that confirms none of the 4 unprovoked attacks by this sp were fatal. West 2011 confirms no fatal attacks by any wobbegong sp. Find bruce (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Find bruce: No worries. Your changes look great to me, so thank you.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi SkyGazer 512 I think the sourcing issue is resolved. I have checked the 2nd image & it too is freely licensed, used in the article and easily discernible at 100px. Of the points you raise above, the only ones outstanding are about ALT0 & ALT1. As I understand it, what you are trying to do with the hook is say this species of shark is dangerous BUT 10yo kids can swim with them. My point is that I don't see the sources saying this species of shark is dangerous. The way West 2011 deals with it is On average, 87 people drown at Australian beaches each year(SLSA 2010), yet there have been, on average, only 1.1 fatalities per year from shark attack over the past two decades. It is clear that the risk of being bitten or dying from an unprovoked shark attack in Australia remains extremely low. This is for all sharks, not just this species. Then there is the definition of "unprovoked" - the fisherman in ALT1 disturbed the shark in a rock pool - he didn't do it intentionally, so it is unprovoked in the technical sense used by the Shark Attack Files and is a long way from the usual sense of unprovoked that the shark bit him for no reason. Find bruce (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Find bruce: Thanks for the reply. I still like ALT0, particular because of what this source says in the Danger to Humans section, but you certainly make very good points and therefore, I would be fine with ALT2. Any more issues before ALT2 can be approved? Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy to approve on basis of ALT2. Find bruce (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Spotted_wobbegong&oldid=884676578"