Template:Did you know nominations/Octopus aquaculture
- 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 10:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Octopus aquaculture edit
- ... that the common octopus (pictured) is a serious candidate for aquaculture in terms of its biological and market potential?
Created/expanded by Nzl52358 (talk). Nominated by Epipelagic (talk) at 10:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting article and a surprising hook fact. Article length and age fully qualify for DYK; article is supported by reliable sources. I have not yet looked at the full articles on which it is based (in order to check for issues of plagiarism or copyvio).
However, my reading of the abstracts leads me to think that the article and hook misrepresent how "serious" a "candidate" the octopus is. I find that the abstracts of the cited articles talk about the constraints that cause octopus aquaculture to be not economically viable under current conditions.
The article would benefit from additional footnotes. The information in the lead about rising prices is not supported by a footnote and is not repeated later in the article (I do note that page 62 of the FAO report has a graph of octopus prices in Japan, but the summary in the text of global markets in 2010 states "octopus was in good supply with reduced price levels"); also the end of the final paragraph is not supported by citations.
Also, the hook needs to reworded so people click on the targeted article instead of the octopus article. For example:
- ALT1: ... that octopus aquaculture (common octopus pictured) has been seriously investigated? --Orlady (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have removed the comment on rising prices, added more footnotes, and expanded the final paragraph as well as other parts of the article.
- ALT2: ... that octopus aquaculture (common octopus pictured) is being seriously investigated because of overfishing, but so far it has been difficult to culture the early life stages? --Epipelagic (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
You've addressed the concerns with the article that I described earlier. However, when I skimmed the revised article and clicked on one online reference to see what it said, I found an open-and-shut case of too-close paraphrasing. Source says "However, both the availability of crustaceans and their price seriously affect the profitability of O. vulgaris farming..." and article says "However, both the availability of crustaceans and their price can seriously affect the profitability of octopus farming." Please make sure that the next spot-check won't uncover similar problems. --Orlady (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Done. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting article and a surprising hook fact. Article length and age fully qualify for DYK; article is supported by reliable sources. I have not yet looked at the full articles on which it is based (in order to check for issues of plagiarism or copyvio).
Paraphrasing checks (1, 2, 3) look okay. Tick based on previous review, and assuming good faith regarding information behind a paywall. ALT2 preferred. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
