Template:Did you know nominations/Hipposideros atrox
- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by SL93 (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Hipposideros atrox
- ... that it took almost 100 years to recognize the lesser bicolored leaf-nosed bat as a full species? Source: This species was listed under Hipposideros bicolor, but is now considered distinct following Douangboubpha et al. (2010).
- Reviewed: Decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts
Created by Enwebb (talk). Self-nominated at 15:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC).
- Nsk92, I duplicated the Andersen ref and the IUCN ref after the fact in question, that the taxon was described in 1918. Do you think it's misleading to refer to a time period of 92 years as "almost 100 years"? I think that your alt hook is longer and less interesting. Enwebb (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I do think that describing 92 years as "almost 100 years" is misleading and a bit OR-ish. Please use a different hook. It does not need to be the one I suggested (the hook I suggested is 134 characters long), but it does need to be more accurate than the current hook.
Also, could you explain what kind of a source ref no. 1 is? I could not quite understand what this source is. And where in it can I find the quote you provide above in support of the original hook?Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC) - Ah, sorry, never mind about the last bit. I just noticed a link to the pdf file there and downloaded the document itself. It would be good to incorporate a link to the pdf file itself [1] in the ref. Nsk92 (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Nsk92, I really think that this is an example of a routine calculation, not OR. But fine: Enwebb (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Alt1:... that it took 92 years to recognize the lesser bicolored leaf-nosed bat as a full species?
- Also the reference is linked? The doi is a link to the html version of that PDF you just linked. Enwebb (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- The Alt1 hook looks better, but it is still somewhat unclear. Specifically the wording is unclear as to 92 years from what? Something like "that it took 92 years after it was first described to recognize ..." or "that it took 92 years after it was first described in 1918 to recognize ..." would be better. Regarding the pdf file, I meant linking the title of the paper to the pdf file itself, rather than to the article page. I added such links to refs 1 and 4, as the other refs already had them. A few other, smaller, things: In the first sentence of the Taxonomy section, please replace citation to ref 1 by citation to ref 4, since the latter discusses the issue in detail. For refs 3 and 5, it would be good to expand them to include the info indicating what the acronyms AMS and ITIS used there mean, American Society of Mammalogists and Integrated Taxonomic Information System (or at least include wikilinks to these WP articles). Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- The IUCN is a perfectly adequate and secondary source to cite for the authority of this taxon--see where authority is listed under the taxonomy section of the assessment. It's better than the primary source of the 2010 journal article in question. Authors can propose any kind of scientific name or taxonomic reassessment they want but it doesn't matter unless it's recognized by other taxonomists and databases. Enwebb (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Alt2:... that it took 92 years to recognize the lesser bicolored leaf-nosed bat as a full species, not a subspecies?
- The Alt1 hook looks better, but it is still somewhat unclear. Specifically the wording is unclear as to 92 years from what? Something like "that it took 92 years after it was first described to recognize ..." or "that it took 92 years after it was first described in 1918 to recognize ..." would be better. Regarding the pdf file, I meant linking the title of the paper to the pdf file itself, rather than to the article page. I added such links to refs 1 and 4, as the other refs already had them. A few other, smaller, things: In the first sentence of the Taxonomy section, please replace citation to ref 1 by citation to ref 4, since the latter discusses the issue in detail. For refs 3 and 5, it would be good to expand them to include the info indicating what the acronyms AMS and ITIS used there mean, American Society of Mammalogists and Integrated Taxonomic Information System (or at least include wikilinks to these WP articles). Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I do think that describing 92 years as "almost 100 years" is misleading and a bit OR-ish. Please use a different hook. It does not need to be the one I suggested (the hook I suggested is 134 characters long), but it does need to be more accurate than the current hook.
- Nsk92, I duplicated the Andersen ref and the IUCN ref after the fact in question, that the taxon was described in 1918. Do you think it's misleading to refer to a time period of 92 years as "almost 100 years"? I think that your alt hook is longer and less interesting. Enwebb (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- ALT2 hook reads OK, thank you. I have no issue with IUCN being a reliable source, but it only mentions Andersen's work once, while ref 4 discusses Andersen in detail. If you don't want to replace ref 1 by ref 4 in that sentence, I would be OK with adding ref 4 to that sentence as an extra cite. Also please replace some of the occurrences of "it" in the last three sections by Hipposideros atrox (or some other noun). Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think having two sources that the taxon was described in 1918 is plenty and three would be overkill. Does this fact not seem supported? The 2010 reference is most relevant to it being recognized as a full species, which is the context in which it is referenced later in this section. I have replaced a pronoun with H. atrox in the conservation section.
- Two secondary sources for a single fact is far from an overkill. As I said, the IUCN only mentions Andersen 1918 once, with no details or explanations or details, just as "Hipposideros atrox Andersen, 1918". The other source, from Acta Chiropterologica, discusses Andersen in detail and in context. Please add the citation to Acta Chiropterologica that sentence in the article. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think having two sources that the taxon was described in 1918 is plenty and three would be overkill. Does this fact not seem supported? The 2010 reference is most relevant to it being recognized as a full species, which is the context in which it is referenced later in this section. I have replaced a pronoun with H. atrox in the conservation section.
