Template:Did you know nominations/Hoplocampa testudinea

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 SL93 (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hoplocampa testudinea, Lathrolestes ensator

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

)

... that the apple sawfly is invasive in North America and that a parasitic wasp has been introduced in an attempt to control it?

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_Spring_Grove_Experiment

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Spring Grove Experiment
Comment: Also reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Neil Hilborn

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Hanberke (talk). Nominated by Cwmhiraeth (talk) at 06:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC).

I think the term that should be used is parasitoid wasp, not parasitic; true parasites do not kill their hosts, whereas parasitoids do. [Note: this isn't part of a review - I'm too busy today to attempt my first one of those - but I noticed this when it was added]. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite: I used the term "parasitic" rather than "parasitoid" because the first is more widely understood by the general reader. Parasitoidy is a form of parasitism so I think that both are correct. Our article on Parasitoid states "There is no clear separation between conventional parasitism and parasitoidy". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand your rationale and it seems you are correct w.r.t the definition - the OED defines a parasitoid as a type of parasite. I remember reading somewhere of a distinction being drawn between parasitic wasp and parasitoid wasp, though of course this might have been a distinction of specificity rather than mutual incompatibility. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing--Kev min § 00:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Needs a different reviewer, I ended up adding to both articles.--Kev min § 03:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, only one of them actually. I have added you to the credits. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Both articles are long enough, new enough and no neutrality or copyrighted issues detected. QPQ done. Article is reference (some sources are offline, AGF on those) and the hook is cited and in both articles. Good to go.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)