Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Autographa sansoni

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Autographa sansoni

[edit]
(
)

Created/expanded by Gilderien (talk). Self nom at 10:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Expansion date and length are good, but the source doesn't say that the two populations are separate, just that "This is a western North American species that is confined to the Rocky Mountains outside of the Northwest." I take that to mean that the moth's range extends beyond the Northwest, but only into the Rocky Mountains. Smokeybjb (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, I read "This is a western North American species that is confined to the Rocky Mountains outside of the Northwest." as the only place it occurs apart from the northwest is in the Rockies, i.e. not inbetween the NW and the Rockies. Can you see this? It might settle it but my computer isn't up to date enough to view the maps.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 10:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The map shows the range in British Colombia and Alberta, and they sort of look separate. I just noticed that the PNW site says the moth lives at high elevations in the Cascades and in the Rocky Mountains, which would be geographically separate. How about replacing "Pacific Northwest" in the hook with "Cascade Range":
ALT1 ... that Autographa sansoni is a type of moth that occurs both in the Cascade Range and the Rocky Mountains, but nowhere in between?
Smokeybjb (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
That would be perfectly acceptable. Are you allowed to approve that hook?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I think so. Looks good to go. Smokeybjb (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, no; it's considered a conflict of interest to review your own ALT. Frankly, I think neither hook is supported by the sources: "nowhere in between" is an extrapolation from a map with an unknown quantity of data points from an unknown period: I don't see any Alaska or Arizona points on it, which are also mentioned in your article; while there is a single Alberta point, there's nothing from New Mexico, the other end from that same source. Absent a more definitive written statement from one of the two sources—and, frankly, two sources is not robust sourcing—I think this needs a new hook. Note that the two sources do not agree on the habitat: one says Alberta to the north down New Mexico in the south, and the other says Alaska to Arizona. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see any specific mention of four wings in the article itself. That fact would need to be there and sourced. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, it was implied from the words "forewings" and "hindwings", but I've made it clearer. It's quite obvious from the photos with the sources, and is described in Dod et al. Thanks :) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • ALT 2 approved: hook fact is covered by "two forewings" and "both hindwings", and the source is cited at the end of the sentence. I'm striking out the original and ALT1 hooks due to the issues discussed above, and reinstating the approval based on Smokeybjb's review. Did not notice any paraphrasing issues, and DYKcheck shows 1580 prose characters and a 5x expansion. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Autographa_sansoni&oldid=828903139"