Template:Did you know nominations/Aphaenogaster praerelicta

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 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Aphaenogaster praerelicta

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the fossil ant Aphaenogaster praerelicta is entombed with three flies, two springtails, and a wasp in amber?

• Reviewed: Mexican native trout
• Comment: Re-review of Mexican native trout

Created by Kevmin (talk). Self nominated at 20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC).

• Article is new enough and long enough, QPQ checks out, hook is good. The only issue I have is that the first paragraph of "Description" is unsourced. After that is fixed, it looks good to go. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 22:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• This should not have been given a tick with with the unsourced paragraph (which does indeed require sourcing per DYK rules), and should not have been promoted, either. Once the paragraph sourcing has been addressed—the review doesn't mention neutrality or close paraphrase checking; does that need to be done as well?—then the article may be eligible for approval. Also, suggesting that "in amber" be displaced in hook text, since it doesn't work well where it is:

• ALT1: ... that the fossil ant Aphaenogaster praerelicta is entombed in amber with three flies, two springtails, and a wasp? —BlueMoonset (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've added a reference to the first half of the description and merged the to paragraphs into one, I'm not sure why I forgot to do that when I moved the article to live. The alt 1 wording flows better then my original hook.--Kevmin § 07:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, this nomination complies with the DYK criteria now that the referencing issue has been sorted out. It is new enough, long enough, the ALT1 hook is cited to an offline source and QPQ done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)