Talk:Sclerotia (beetle)

Beetles Low‑importance

	Insects portal Sclerotia (beetle) is within the scope of WikiProject Beetles, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to beetles. For more information, visit the project page.BeetlesWikipedia:WikiProject BeetlesTemplate:WikiProject Beetlesbeetle articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 18:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single source[edit]

@UtherSRG: Thanks for looking it over. Could you please let me know what additional source you found that contains significant additional information, since I can't see one; I would be happy to include that. Also note that articles relying on a single source are not considered a problem if there is only one such source; we even have featured articles that almost entirely rely on a single source (e.g., Perijá tapaculo). Regarding the categories, I am also unsure what else is needed there; other firefly genus articles do not seem to have more categories as well. Thanks. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the taxonbar. It has a list of links, some of which can be used to support at least the taxonomic data, if not more. For categories, the typical list should include at least one of each of the following: taxonomic, location, authority, year. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. The higher-level taxa are not something where we would need an additional source here; they are generated by the automatic taxonbox and are sourced elsewhere. This is not how we work here. Regarding the categories; added location, and what seems to be missing now is only the authority; I don't think categories for this particular author exist. Thanks, Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I must admit that just don't understand the issue. Could you clarify? The maintenance template you inserted cites WP:Articles_with_a_single_source and WP:Notability. Both deal with notability of articles. Are you concerned about the notability of this article? If not, what precisely is the issue? And how would that issue be solved by linking to some automatic content in databases that are already linked in the taxonbar? Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added one database source anyways to double-cite the species list, because it does not hurt (the only other source that lists the species as far as I can see). That should address all issues now. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who tagged for one source. I added the sources exist tag to allay any concerns. I agree this is good now. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]