Template:Did you know nominations/Apterostigma electropilosum

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Apterostigma electropilosum

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the fossil ant Apterostigma electropilosum is named for amber and the species it is related to?

• Reviewed: Iago sparrow

Created by Kevmin (talk). Self nominated at 00:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC).

• The article says something about a species group, not a related species, and please -- isn't there something more interesting to say about this? Aren't these fungus growers? EEng (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Remember that the plural of species is species, so I kept the hook short rather then wordy and hard for lay readers. As the species is known from a single fossil worker, there was nothing that the authors could identify about possible habits and farming practice. I think the hook is interesting from the etymology aspect and dont think it should be struck yet.--Kevmin § 05:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I was hasty in striking, but still I strongly advise you dig deep for a better hook. Just IMHO. EEng (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• How about: That the extinct ant species Apterostigma electropilosum was discovered after scientists found a solitary fossilized specimen in a chunk of amber? Bali88 (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• I works its just one that I've used before for fossils, lol, I would have to reword that to

ALT1: ... that the extinct ant species Apterostigma electropilosum was described from a solitary fossil in amber?

-The rewording is because the identity of the finder (the person that found the amber chunk in the Dominican Republic) is unknown, and it was described by a single scientist not multiple scientists.--Kevmin § 02:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Personally I would do "blah blah was discovered after a single fossilized specimen was found in amber"...discovered as opposed to described...seems a little friendlier to non-sciency folks, but either way sounds good to me :-) Bali88 (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Problem is Discover and described have different meanings and described is what was done in the paper. Discover is the finding of the hunk of amber in the ground unknown years prior to description.--Kevmin § 05:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Described will work just fine. :-) Bali88 (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Full review needed now that hooks have been set. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• This article is new enough and long enough. The ALT1 hook is cited to an offline reliable source and accepted in good faith, I have struck the others. The article is neutral and I doubt it has any copyright problems because the scientific papers used generally adopt a more technical style than does this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)