Template:Did you know nominations/Evolution of snake venom
<
Template:Did you know nominations
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Evolution of snake venom
- ...
that the evolution of snake venom (the highly venomous Crotalus horridus pictured) is thought to have occurred only once in history?
- ALT1:...
that venom is thought to have had a single origin in the evolutionary history of snakes (the highly venomous Crotalus horridus pictured)? - ALT2: ... that venom is thought to have had a single origin in the evolutionary history of snakes
(the highly venomous Crotalus horridus pictured)?
- ALT1:...
Created by Vanamonde93 (talk). Self nominated at 23:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC).
- Note; ALT 1 is included only because the "title must be in hook" requirement means that the first hook is slightly misleading; it equates "evolution" and "origin." Hopefully somebody more intelligent than myself will see a way to hybridize the two. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Further note; this is my second nomination, therefore no QPQ. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is no "title must be in hook" requirement. There must be a bold link to the article, but it can be piped in any reasonable way, so the actual title is not required to be visible. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I misunderstood, it would seem. In that case, I have struck the first hook as being mildly misleading about the content of the article. The second one is a lot more precise.
- Except you have all of that precisely backwards. Your first hook was fine (except for the bad formatting for the scientific name [fixed]). Your second hook is terrible and makes it look like you're linking to the venom article. As a compromise, might I propose
ALT2: ... that venom is thought to have had a single origin in the evolutionary history of snakes(the highly venomous Crotalus horridus pictured)?
— LlywelynII 16:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I've said it before; formatting is not my strong point. Alt 2 seems great to me. I still maintain, though, that the first hook was misleading. Is there anything else I need to fix? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)- @LlywelynII:, I've added Alt2 above as you suggested, and struck alt 1. Is there anything else I need to fix? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm able to verify that the article is new; long; neutral; and cited. Outstanding issues:
I need someone else to check that this source supports the hook. It's somewhat suspicious that such a major finding goes unmentioned in the abstract, but it may very well support the claim: I'm just not going to pay USD36 to find out. Anyone with access through their university hanging around?- The only substantial plagiarism seems to be from Wikipedia's own snake venom article. Personally, I don't much care since the article is expanded and needful and this hook wasn't used for a DYK for that article. Does anyone else care?
- @Vanamonde93: should check @Ccevol2014:'s recent overhaul of snake venom's evolution section to make sure the two articles aren't out of date or erroneous in some particulars.
- There should be no picture [removed]. The nature of this hook is such that the only appropriate photo is one of the fossil of the evolutionary link in question. I had initially thought that the snake pictured was a living fossil or close relative of the original link; it is, in fact, just some snake. It's inappropriate for this hook.
- Personally, I feel that the fact that venom is just a form of saliva is interesting and unknown enough to mention:
ALT3: ... that the development of saliva into venom is now thought to have occurred only once in the evolutionary history of snakes?
- As a side point, Chrome ate this the first time through and I had to research and type this all out again. Hopefully this counts as a review, even though I'm going to need someone else to access the journal article. — LlywelynII 11:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. To answer your first point; here is the entirety of the "introduction" section of the article, easily verified;
The first two higher-level squamate phylogenetic studies using multiple nuclear genes (C-mos and RAG-1) and broad taxonomic coverage (Vidal and Hedges, 2004; Townsend et al., 2004) suggested that most of the classical phylogeny based on morphology was incorrect. The interrelationships among a large novel clade containing i) snakes, ii) anguimorphs, iii) iguanians, and iv) amphisbaenians, lacertids and teiioids could not be resolved in either of these initial studies. Subsequently, it was demonstrated with the use of nine nuclear genes that venom has been a key evolutionary innovation underlying the diversification of the reptile clade Toxicofera including snakes, anguimorphs and iguanians (Fry et al., 2006; Vidal and Hedges, 2005). It has therefore only recently been determined that the single origin of venom in reptiles occurred approximately 170 million years ago during the Jurassic period (Fry et al., 2006; Vidal and Hedges, 2005). Advances in molecular systematics and venomics have thus provided the vital phylogenetic framework necessary for a reconstruction of the evolutionary history of all components of the reptilian venom-delivery system (Fry et al., 2006; Vidal et al., 2007; Vidal and Hedges, 2004, 2005).
— Source: Fry et al, Toxicon, 2012
That actually wouldn't be easy to verify since I can't just take your word for it, but luckily someone seems to have uploaded the entire article as part of their reply to it. I was able to verify that your quote above is accurate and the source does support your point. (You might consider using {{refn}} to provide an excerpt in your footnotes at the article.) I like ALT3 best since it shows that this is fairly new (but credible) research disagreeing with the earlier consensus & mentions the shift from saliva. You ok with it? or are you very invested in your misreading of it as suggesting other things also turn into snake venom?
If so, that's fine. We can just wait for another reviewer to offer her preference between the two. — LlywelynII 18:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- To answer your second point; Ccevol's revision looks good, but a glance at this shows that I began my userspace draft before CCevol began their revision. The sources used are similar because they are the best ones currently on topic. Finally, Alt 3 leaves the possibility open that other things became snake venom as well, which is a trifle misleading. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- The "plagiarism" point is separate. My point w/r/t CCevol's overhaul of the evolution section of the venom article is that they were indeed distinct from your editing. As a sidenote, I'm merely suggesting you review his edits: he may have some good points to include in your article or some mistaken impressions you could fix in his. — LlywelynII 18:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding so soon. I guess the verification problem is solved; but what I meant was, googling the quote I provided would lead you right to the article it came from, thus providing verification even if you don't have access to the article itself. In any case; I am a little hung up over my reading of ALT3, partly because I have had this discussion with other people, and there are instances of things other than saliva being used as the base for venom in other clades. I would be happy to hear a third opinion, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. To answer your first point; here is the entirety of the "introduction" section of the article, easily verified;
- Except you have all of that precisely backwards. Your first hook was fine (except for the bad formatting for the scientific name [fixed]). Your second hook is terrible and makes it look like you're linking to the venom article. As a compromise, might I propose
- To my mind, that's a reason to specify which base developed in the evolution of snakes, not a reason not to specify it. No worries, though.
We just need another reviewer or two to drop by and give their thoughts about whether they prefer ALT2 or ALT3. Both are sourced and ready to go. (Maybe there's some tick mark or template we can use to ask for attention... Let's try this one:
Surely someone will come by to see what that was about... ; ) — LlywelynII 01:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Or not... :( — LlywelynII 14:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I too thought that that outpouring would bring somebody hot-footing over, but I guess not. Somebody has to get here eventually, don't they? There isn't a nomination graveyard that this could go for lack of attention? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The length of the discussions usually makes everybody's eyes glaze. :P Anyway, I prefer ALT3.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)- I can live with that. Could somebody move this forward now, with ALT3? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed this from Prep 6 because the hook has not been independently verified. ALT3 was proposed by the original reviewer and needs to be reviewed by a different person. Choosing a hook is not a review. Also, although there is no rule against it, reviewing and promoting the same nomination is generally discouraged. Fuebaey (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed this from Prep 6 because the hook has not been independently verified. ALT3 was proposed by the original reviewer and needs to be reviewed by a different person. Choosing a hook is not a review. Also, although there is no rule against it, reviewing and promoting the same nomination is generally discouraged.
- ALT2 and ALT3 hooks need to be checked by an independent reviewer to be sure they're supported in the article and in the source(s) listed for those article facts. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's unnecessary since all the hooks are just variants of the same sentence with the only addition being the saliva part (easily verified). This is good to go.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Obsidian Soul, since I proposed ALT2, Llewelleyn's verification should mean it is good to go? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)