Template:Did you know nominations/Ceratophyllus gallinae

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 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Ceratophyllus gallinae

(

)

Female Ceratophyllus gallinae

... that over 5,000 hen fleas (pictured) were recorded from the nest of a coal tit? Source: "... 5754 Ceratophyllus gallinae from a nest of Parus ater.(Harper et al. 1992)"

Reviewed: Mary Chase Walker

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 10:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC).

A typically good nomination from Cwmhiraeth. Image has been released to WP. Article is long enough and has been 5X expanded. Hook is of appropriate length and extremely interesting. Article and hook are NPOV. Earwig returns no obvious copyvio and there are no signs of close para. QPQ is done. The hook is immediately cited in-body to a book published by Brill Publishers which is RS. All other policies met. GTG. LavaBaron (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: The use of the word "recorded" in the hook seems odd to me, as I wonder how a flea is recorded from a nest. Is there another term or expression which would better reflect your intent – "recorded in" or "recovered from" or "found in" or ...? I know this sort of tweak can be done in prep, but then it sometimes doesn't get seen by the nominator, who is the one best placed to comment have written the article and read all the sources, hence my asking now. This comment is not intended to impede the progress of the nomination and I say to the promoter that my comment does not alter the status of the nomination following LavaBaron's tick. EdChem (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

"Found in" could I suppose be substituted, but I think recorded is better as the researchers were obviously tearing the nest apart and surveying what they found. Many of the fleas would have been eggs or larvae I imagine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

*Concur that "recorded" is certainly the more appropriate term. "Found in" is suggestive of a happenstance encounter and is wildly inappropriate, to an almost extreme degree, here. "Recorded in" is also inappropriate, as Cwmhiraeth notes, since not all 5,000 were physically in the coat at the time of recording. (There has been a past question whether "over" needs to be replaced by "more than," however, I've previously noted the AP style guide has recently accepted the two as synonymous and our own MOS doesn't mandate one over the other.) I wouldn't dwell too heavily on EdChem's comment. "Bulletproof" LavaBaron (Survivor of 4 DYK TBAN Attempts) (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Well actually, although we think of the "flea" as meaning the adult stage, this is not really so, and the egg is just as much a specimen of Ceratophyllus gallinae as is the adult. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)