Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Ostreopsis"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>John P. Sadowski (NIOSH)
(pass)
imported>John P. Sadowski (NIOSH)
(actually, "poisoning" has a different meaning)
Line 22: Line 22:
 
::{{ping|John P. Sadowski (NIOSH)}} How about ALT1? Or do you object to the use of the word "poisoning"? [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 06:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 
::{{ping|John P. Sadowski (NIOSH)}} How about ALT1? Or do you object to the use of the word "poisoning"? [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 06:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 
*'''ALT1''' ... that a '''[[Ostreopsis|marine species of dinoflagellate]]''' was implicated in the poisoning of 200 Italian beachgoers in 2005?
 
*'''ALT1''' ... that a '''[[Ostreopsis|marine species of dinoflagellate]]''' was implicated in the poisoning of 200 Italian beachgoers in 2005?
::[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] That looks good.  The source says "about 200" instead of "209" unless I missed something, so I changed the hook to reflect that. [[User:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH)|John P. Sadowski (NIOSH)]] ([[User talk:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH)|talk]]) 18:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
+
:: That looks better, but according to its article, [[poisoning]] involves chemical rather than just biological harm.  The source says "about 200" instead of "209" unless I missed something, so I changed the hook to reflect that. [[User:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH)|John P. Sadowski (NIOSH)]] ([[User talk:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH)|talk]]) 18:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 18:43, 18 August 2017

Ostreopsis

  • Reviewed: Nicola De Giosa
  • Comment: This is a two article QPQ, used also for the Palythoa toxica nomination, from which this nomination has been split. The original nomination was made on 6 August, well within the seven-day requirement for this article, which was created on 4 August.

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 13:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New and long enough, within policy, Earwig detects no copyvios, QPQ done. The hook doesn't reflect the article; the cited study implicated Ostreopsis in the adverse health effects, but not strongly enough for the way the hook is currently worded. A hook that more closely follows the wording of the article/source would be fine. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Template:Ping How about ALT1? Or do you object to the use of the word "poisoning"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
That looks better, but according to its article, poisoning involves chemical rather than just biological harm. The source says "about 200" instead of "209" unless I missed something, so I changed the hook to reflect that. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)