A fact from Leptoconops kerteszi appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 January 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Diptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of flies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DipteraWikipedia:WikiProject DipteraTemplate:WikiProject DipteraDiptera articles
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
"can be found in the United States, Egypt, and Tunisia"
This article seems to be making the same mistake I've observed in many others concerning species: it cites a source which names locations where a species has been scientifically identified, and treats that as its distribution. This is a misuse of sources, since they rarely state that the species in question only exists there, for cases like this where the named locations are widely separated. Common sense suggests that a single species is unlikely to be found "in the United States, Egypt, and Tunisia" and nowhere else, and indeed at least one source is available that specifically states that it has been identified elsewhere - in Italy. [1] Adding Italy to the list of places it 'can be found' will not however rectify the fundamental problem, in my opinion. Instead, the article needs to avoid making implications not borne out by the sources. I note that the 1948 Smith and Lowe source cited states that "The black gnats are widely distributed throughout the world but occur only in very limited discontinuous areas where suitable larval habitats are found", which seems entirely adequate to describe the situation, if a more recent source cannot be located which provides a better description. I would look into this myself, but currently don't have access to the academic sources necessary for this sort of research. Can I ask then that someone (perhaps the creator of the article, who seems to have such access) would do a little more research, and amend the article so it makes rather less sweeping statements about the distribution of a small, if rather annoying, insect? 86.147.97.26 (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't have anymore access than the average editor. I just checked out a book from the library and used Google searches. SL93 (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Bye now. SL93 (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps you should read the sources you've already cited more carefully then. I've just realised that the article already cites the study showing the presence of this species in Italy. How can you cite an article, and fail to notice something like that? You didn't even need to read the article itself, it clearly names Italy in the abstract. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
