Template:Did you know nominations/Culture of microalgae in hatcheries
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Allen3 talk 10:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Culture of microalgae in hatcheries
[edit]
- ... that microalgae is used widely in aquaculture and is now cultured itself in hatcheries (pictured)?
Created/expanded by Ddso004 (talk). Nominated by Epipelagic (talk) at 23:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am trying to understand why this article is separate from the stubbier primary article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Article passes length, date and adequate referencing, although I have not checked for copyvios.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Most refs are offline, so I WP:AGF in terms of copyvios.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hook is adequate length.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Nominator needs to do a QPQ.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)- The review requirement is only for self-nominations, although it is true that many people do reviews for nominations of others' work too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- You are correct.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- The review requirement is only for self-nominations, although it is true that many people do reviews for nominations of others' work too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Also WP:AGF on offline source verification specific to the hook.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hook seems neutral and moderately interesting although I continue to question why this article is split from Microphyte.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- There is nothing problematic I see here apart from the titles of the articles. Microphyte should perhaps be renamed microalgae and culture of microalgae in hatcheries should perhaps be renamed aquaculture of microalgae (I'll rename them after the DYK has run its course). The main article on microalgae is currently little more than a stub which needs to be expanded to cover things like its evolution and biology, as well as the key place it occupies in aquatic ecosystems. The "aquaculture of microalgae" is part of a series of articles on aquaculture. Aquaculture is a topic in its own right, and belongs in the main microalgae article only as a subsection. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree that this would be undue weight if included in the main microalgae article. Regarding paraphrasing, this looks fine, as does this. AGF on offline sources and sources behind paywall. Tick based on TTT's review. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
