Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Gesomyrmex macrops"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Kevmin
imported>Graeme Bartlett
(why we need more than a primary reference)
Line 37: Line 37:
 
::*{{ping|Graeme Bartlett}} Two sources for a fossil (or any) species that was described less then a year ago, has never been a wiki or dyk requirement.  Taxa are defaulted to notable, and the majority of life will rarely have more then a single reference to go by.
 
::*{{ping|Graeme Bartlett}} Two sources for a fossil (or any) species that was described less then a year ago, has never been a wiki or dyk requirement.  Taxa are defaulted to notable, and the majority of life will rarely have more then a single reference to go by.
 
::*I will do another QPQ as I missed the duplicate use.   
 
::*I will do another QPQ as I missed the duplicate use.   
::*I reread the reference and clarified the article & hook to largest "eye diameter to head length".--[[User:Kevmin|<font color="#120A8F">Kev</font>]][[User talk:Kevmin|<font color="#228B22">min</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Kevmin|§]] 00:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
+
::*I reread the reference and clarified the article & hook to largest "eye diameter to head length".--[[User:Kevmin|<font color="#120A8F">Kev</font>]][[User talk:Kevmin|<font color="#228B22">min</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Kevmin|§]] 00:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 +
:::*There would be more tertiary references around, eg https://www.antweb.org/description.do?genus=gesomyrmex&species=macrops&rank=species, http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=326836. An article about a taxa certainly should avoid a speedy delete, but automatic notability is not assured. After all anyone can make up a taxa, even me. They are basically a human construction.  But if others recognise it, then it proves that it is notable. I am not rejecting based on lack of notability.  I just expect the references to prove it! On the QPQ it is possible that you have missed using one.  DYKbot above failed to observe that it was a multiarticle hook, and which articles you claimed already. But it miht be easier to do a new QPQ than to work out what was not claimed already! [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 01:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 01:54, 2 October 2016

Gesomyrmex macrops

  • ... that Gesomyrmex macrops has the largest eye to head diameter of the three described Bol’shaya Svetlovodnaya fossil site Gesomyrmex ant species? Source: "Differs from other species of Svetlovodnaya by large eyes. (Dlussky et al 2015)

Created by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 00:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC).


  1. REDIRECT Template:•Symbol question.svg Some issues found.
    • This article is new and was created on 19:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • This article meets the DYK criteria at 2148 characters
    • Paragraphs [3] (The ... length.) in this article lack a citation.
    • This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (3.8% confidence; confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  1. REDIRECT Template:•Symbol question.svg Some overall issues detected

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 22:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg Although big and new enough, there is only one reference. To show notability I expect at least two references. Hook is short enough. QPQ fail, as Northern grass mouse already claimed in Template:Did you know nominations/Archencyrtus. It was from a multi article hook, so perhaps another was intended. On the hook side of things, what is in the hook is not stated in the article. I don't see "largest" or "larger than everything else". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Template:Ping Two sources for a fossil (or any) species that was described less then a year ago, has never been a wiki or dyk requirement. Taxa are defaulted to notable, and the majority of life will rarely have more then a single reference to go by.
  • I will do another QPQ as I missed the duplicate use.
  • I reread the reference and clarified the article & hook to largest "eye diameter to head length".--Kevmin§ 00:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There would be more tertiary references around, eg https://www.antweb.org/description.do?genus=gesomyrmex&species=macrops&rank=species, http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=326836. An article about a taxa certainly should avoid a speedy delete, but automatic notability is not assured. After all anyone can make up a taxa, even me. They are basically a human construction. But if others recognise it, then it proves that it is notable. I am not rejecting based on lack of notability. I just expect the references to prove it! On the QPQ it is possible that you have missed using one. DYKbot above failed to observe that it was a multiarticle hook, and which articles you claimed already. But it miht be easier to do a new QPQ than to work out what was not claimed already! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)