A fact from Palaeorehniidae appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 September 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that with all known Palaeorehniidae fossils (example pictured) being incomplete, the relationships of the family are uncertain?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
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.
... that with all known Palaeorehniidae fossils being incomplete, the relationships of the family are uncertain? Source: Archibald, Gu, & Mathewes, 2022 Introduction (belonging to the superfamily Hagloidea (s.s., see below) or maybe the Stenopelmatoidea, or perhaps to an undescribed taxon intermediate between the two) and Reassessment of superfamily assignments pg563 (By the strong similarity of all other aspects of the venation of these five genera listed in our emended diagnosis below, we group them as a taxon of unknown superfamily affinity, suspecting that these veins might have a range of lengths among them, perhaps varying from the hagloid-type to the stenopelmatoid-type. If this is so, it would be in concordance with Gorochov (1995), who considered the venation of Zeuneropterinae to be intermediate between the Stenopelmatoidea and Hagloidea.)
Article meets DYK requirements, is free from close paraphrasing, and a QPQ has been provided. There are however some issues with the article and the nomination. First, the hook fact (which I am assuming good faith for) is not cited directly inline; it appears to be cited, but the citation is not at the sentence which mentions the "affinity is uncertain" fact but rather at a different sentence later in the same paragraph. That needs to be addressed. Second, the hook as currently written is too specialist: the hook fact itself might be interesting if reworded, but the current wording is too technical and may not be understood by someone unfamiliar with biology. Laypeople for example may not know what a fossil's "affinity" is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's cited directly at the end of the sentence where the affinity is discussed Due to the incomplete nature of all known Palaeorehniidae fossils, Archibald, Gu, and Mathewes decided to leave the family without a superfamily placement in Ensifera, and discussed the possibilities of placement within Hagloidea, Stenopelmatoidea, or an intermediate superfamily or clade that is yet unnamed.[2] While long its the sentence I took the hook from.
As for issue two I reworded the hook, but also will note that there is no evidence "affinity" is in any way obtuse or jargony.--Kevmin§ 01:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's because you're an expert on this so it may not sound jargony to you, but the meaning of "affinity" may not be immediately be clear to non-specialists. It's a bit more of a formal term. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted, I updated the hook wording, and the hook fact was already correctly cited....--Kevmin§ 01:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also Merriam-Webster begs to differ that affinity is formal in the way its used here, eg 2 KINSHIP and 3 biological relatedness. Affinity is a common english word that evokes the meaning I used it for here.--Kevmin§ 19:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article meets DYK requirements, is free from close paraphrasing, and a QPQ has been provided. There are however some issues with the article and the nomination. First, the hook fact (which I am assuming good faith for) is not cited directly inline; it appears to be cited, but the citation is not at the sentence which mentions the "affinity is uncertain" fact but rather at a different sentence later in the same paragraph. That needs to be addressed. Second, the hook as currently written is too specialist: the hook fact itself might be interesting if reworded, but the current wording is too technical and may not be understood by someone unfamiliar with biology. Laypeople for example may not know what a fossil's "affinity" is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Nah, the new wording solves my original concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)