Template:Did you know nominations/Allocyclosa
- 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Allocyclosa
[edit]
Allocyclosa bifurca (female)
- ... that in a study involving around 350 spiders positively identified as Allocyclosa bifurca, only two were males? Source:Allocyclosa bifurca
5x expanded by Sesamehoneytart (talk). Self-nominated at 18:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC).
This article is a stub and does not contain the hook fact. The hook does not actually make any sense (species aren't male or female) and you have misinterpretted what the source says (even aside from the "species"/"specimen" mix-up). It is not making the claim that only 350 specimens of Allocyclosa bifurca have been identified. I recommend that you expand the article further and propose a new hook. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with your opinion about the hook. I updated it to be a bit more clear about what it is trying to say, but the article itself meets the length requirement for the category I submitted it under. The hook is in the source provided in the third bullet point under the section labeled "Remarks" (this is paraphrasing Levi's publication) Sesamehoneytart 02:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, I've copyedited the hook a little, so I'm happy that that problem is resolved. I am concerned that the article remains very short (it's right on the minimum line, but no one is of the view that all articles that toe the line are long enough- that's explicitly written into the criteria). Perhaps you could include some information about distribution/habitat, and I think it would be helpful to split the article into a few short sections; a lead, a taxonomy section, a description and a habitat/range might do the job. While you're doing this, it'd be great if you could fix the two problems I have identified in the article itself. I also note that the current image lacks licensing info; perhaps you could forward the information you have to an OTRS address, as explained at Commons:COM:OTRS. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Josh Milburn, Sesamehoneytart addressed one of the problems, the sourcing issue, and also reworded that sentence; is it to your satisfaction? Also, the image is now in OTRS, so it should be okay for DYK use. However, the "clarification needed" tag is still there, and the stub template remains as well; I agree that it's a problem that the entire article is a single paragraph. I'm also concerned about the description of the females as 30% larger than the males, given the subsequent text putting the males at 2mm to 3mm and the females at 5mm to 9mm; the females would be twice to three times as long, and probably even more that in terms of volume or mass, so there's a significant factual problem here, and the source is not online so I couldn't check it. Sesamehoneytart has not edited on Wikipedia since early July (and it's the only edit after adding the source on June 15). This has been sitting for nearly two months; it would be nice to get this wrapped up. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Feel free to drop this if it isn't sufficient. There is very little more I can add to the article at present without making it sound overly scientific. The size is an interesting issue, and when I have more time, I'll have to look back through the sources to make sure I got that correct. The NMBE has links to many of the references here if it helps. Sesamehoneytart 17:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- The article has improved, but I second BlueMoonset's worries. In particular, the article does look very short for a DYK article; maybe I'd be less worried about this if it had been split into sections with a short lead. If the author is happy to have this removed from the queue, that may be the best option. 19:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)