Template:Did you know nominations/Archimyrmex
- 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 97198 (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Archimyrmex
[edit]
- ... that fossils of the extinct ant Archimyrmex (pictured) have been described from North America, South America and Europe?
- ALT1:... that a new species (pictured) of the extinct ant Archimyrmex was described in 2012?
- Reviewed: Gunung Ambang Nature Reserve
- Comment: Reviewed Gunung Ambang Nature Reserve of the Gunung Ambang Nature Reserve nom
Created by Kevmin (talk). Self nominated at 02:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC).
Long enough; new enough; neutral; assuming no copyvio etc. as I can't access the sources; QPQ done. Either hook is cited in the article, ALT1 is more interesting but more confusing (which I suppose is what a hook should be). Picture is fine but I wouldn't use it as it is just a blob even at full resolution. Belle (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Some stylistic issues in this article. I have listed them as fully as I can, to help with getting this DYK? completed.
- References are not generally put into the summary paragraph unless it is likely to be challenged, I don't think there's anything controversial here. See WP:LEADCITE.
- The History and classification section contains information extracted from an old academic paper (Ref #2) that was written in the first person, a bit like a diary entry. This has led to some odd phrasing in the article; it should be re-written without the biographical tone and without unnecessary detail (e.g. "Mrs Cockerell", "station 1"). Summarise the facts, leave the weirdness to the original source.
- The first paragraph of the Description section needs a citation.
- A red link to the "Ventana Formation" is included - is this a notable subject? If not, then no red link is required. If it is, then this should be written. I've found very little about the "Ventana Formation" in Argentina on the internet. WP:RED
- I have had little success with the duplication detector as some of the sources are scanned/locked pdf's. I've manually read part of Ref#1, Ref#2, Ref#4 (not sure what this adds to the article) and Ref#5. No issues noted, but this was a manual check. Wikiwayman (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Apart from the third point (which I was being flexible on), there's nothing there to stop it qualifying for DYK. As you say, these are stylistic issues, and we're normally happy if the article is in coherent English (it's not GA, as they keep telling me). The citation in the lede is to comply with DYK rules on citations for the hook fact. Belle (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- A good example, Belle, of the unpredictable standards to which articles are held, as discussed recently at TDYK. EEng (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- How so, specifically?--Kevmin § 02:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- That someone showed up listing stylistic issues which aren't part of DYK requirements. It's been observed frequently that DYK reviewers give reign to their personal whims of what an article should look like. EEng (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- The guidelines are spelled out in the DYK guidelines section, there is no requirement to do more, and articles are not to be passed if they do less. I dont see that as uneven.--Kevmin § 02:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- You obviously haven't been
hanging around here very longpaying attention [see below]. Just wait. EEng (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- You obviously haven't been
- The guidelines are spelled out in the DYK guidelines section, there is no requirement to do more, and articles are not to be passed if they do less. I dont see that as uneven.--Kevmin § 02:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- That someone showed up listing stylistic issues which aren't part of DYK requirements. It's been observed frequently that DYK reviewers give reign to their personal whims of what an article should look like. EEng (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- How so, specifically?--Kevmin § 02:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- A good example, Belle, of the unpredictable standards to which articles are held, as discussed recently at TDYK. EEng (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- References added to missed description paragraph. Regarding the "old academic paper" That reference is the type description of the Genus and type species, one of the preferred referecne types for taxa articles. Mrs Cockerell is notable as the finder of the type specimen, and station one is the specific type location within the Green River Formation (a stratagraphic unit covering many square miles), so also very relevant to the genus. Neither are considered weirdness in biology literature. The Ventana Formation is notable as the type locality for at least two known species, I red links are perfectly fine in an article.--Kevmin § 01:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for answering my questions; I realise style is a matter of some subjectivity and I'm happy that the article is ready, if not perfect, now that the cite has been added (that was the only clear DYK requirement, and the only change I said had to be done). I spent quite some time manually checking this article and found it both accurate and concise. Wikiwayman (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Still ready (see above all the bickering) Belle (talk) 11:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)