Template:Did you know nominations/Uintascorpio

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Allen3 ^talk 11:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Uintascorpio

(

)

... that the extinct buthid scorpion Uintascorpio was first placed in the family Vaejovidae?

Reviewed: Castilleja christii

Created/expanded by Kevmin (talk). Self nom at 22:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Length OK, age OK, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, but relies entirely on one source. --hydrox (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The review is the only available source, and the most comprehensive. One source is generally acceptable for taxa articles. --Kev min § 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well.. I am not sure then. Why are there no more sources available? Could you at least refer to the mentioned sources in the second paragraph of "History and classification"? Also, year 200x is missing the last digit. Not changing my vote because lack of more sources calls into question the validity of the whole hook. As far as I understood, new research could change the classification. After all, this whole genus is based on a single fossil, and the new genus has not been endorsed by other authors. --hydrox (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"Not endorsed by other authors", Im not sure what you mean by that. As for the number of specimens, this is a very very common situation for taxa that are described, both living and extinct, and does not change the validity of a taxon. If you look through the other articles on extinct taxa that have gone through dyk, many of them are single specimen taxa. I would include them if I had access to them.--Kev min § 23:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"Not endorsed by other authors": with that I mean that apparently there have been no other researchers who have supported the existence of this genus, and even the article is clear that previous researchers have placed the specimen in different genus. What I am wary of is original research, publishing of or summarizing primary sources, such as this paper, in Wikipedia. Although it is accepted, I am not sure if an article that entirely relies on one paper is good for DYK.

This is one of my first DYK reviews, so not sure what kind of material generally gets approved for DYK. --hydrox (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Updated: Changing my vote to AGF-OK, because after re-reading the DYK criteria, there is no requirements on the number of sources, as long as there IS a source. --hydrox (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Its possible I was not clear in my writing of the article, but aside from one researchers suggestion that the genus is a jr synonym of a modern genus, Uintascorpio has been accepted. It has, however been moved between families several times now. --Kev min §

Ehmm, sorry, I seem to have gotten the terms family and genus mixed up altogether. Apparently this genus name (Uintascorpio) has been used in many publications already, before the genus (the subject of the article) was reclassified in a different family. I added a reference to the original publication where this genus was first described. --hydrox (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)