Template:Did you know nominations/Heterelmis stephani

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Heterelmis stephani[edit]

(
)

Created by MB (talk). Self-nominated at 18:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC).

  • The article is new, created on 16th/17th, posted by due day. Long enough. Image in the article: its license is okay. Earwig's copyvio detector: violation unlikely. The article is interesting, well sourced. QPQ done. Hook is short, verified. @MB: Can we insert "the rare beetle" phrase in the hook, for clarity, for non-scientific readers? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: I didn't say it was a beetle in the hook to entice more people to read the article to find out went extinct (the "hooky" guideline: likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article). I'll add an ALT but I still think I like the shortest one best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs)
Fair enough, if that is the way you wish to make the hook hooky. Your hooks meet the DYK guidelines, so this GTG. I like the main hook more. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • After a discussion at WT:DYK#Prep 6 (Heterelmis stephani) noted that the article is inconsistent in its characterization of the beetle, in that the lead reads as if it is still in existence, while in the body it's said to be extinct, and also thought that the promoted original hook was not particularly interesting, I decided to pull the hook. The two existing ALTs have similar issues to the original hook. I think a more interesting hook would be one that mentioned being discovered in 1969 and declared extinct in 2016: that's a less than 50 year span, a very short time indeed. However, it would need better sourcing: source 4 gives 1969 as the discovery year; source 2 doesn't mention 1969 at all, much less as the year it was described. (This source gives the description year as 1972.) Source 4 also says that the last documented sighting of the beetle was in 1993. So a hook that mentioned the extinction and also gave the first sighting as 1969 and the last as 1993 would also, I believe, be interesting. Again, the inline source citations would need to back up anything in the new hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I have tweaked the lead to say was instead of is since the species is now extinct. As far as the date of discovery, source 2 and 4 both say 1969, and source 5 indirectly says it by listing 1969 in a table 3.1.1 as first year surveyed, so I think the sources are solid on this. New hook added here:
  • ALT3:... that less than 50 years after being discovered, Heterelmis stephani is now presumed extinct?
  • New reviewer needed for ALT3, including its sourcing. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT3 is accurate and acceptable and the article now uses suitable tenses. Ready to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote this but I am confused by the discrepancy with the source in paragraph 2 under "Description". Footnote 7 says that Stephen initially collected 7 specimens from that locality on February 6, 1969, and 56 specimens from other places on the same date. Then he found one male specimen in Madera Canyon, Bog Springs, on May 16, 1970. I don't see any verification for the last sentence in paragraph 2. Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I had the May 16, 1970 date duplicated. The first 7 were collected on Feb 6, 1969. Then the additional were collected on May 16, 1970. I changed the first date to May 16, 1969. That make the article agree with P 233 of the source. MB (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2016‎ (UTC)
@MB: Thank you. But it is my understanding of the source that there are 63 paratypes in total. Seven were collected from the same site on February 6, 1969. Shouldn't the last sentence in the paragraph read: Stephan collected a further 36 samples on May 16, 1970? (I don't see anything about larval samples in the source.) Yoninah (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Paratypes are those samples deposited with museums. There were more samples collected than were later made paratypes (I don't know what happened to the rest - lost, damaged, disected, etc.) The last sentence of the paragraph refers to samples collected and the source is from P230 of the same document (quoted here):
Among miscellaneous dryopoids sent to me for identification by Karl Stephan of Tucson, Arizona were 7 specimens apparently representing an undescribed species of Heterelmis. Upon request, he returned to the same locality and collected 64 additional adults and a larva. These have provided the basis for the following description. I take pleasure in naming this new species for the collector, Mr. Karl H. Stephan.
I hope this clarifies everything. MB 17:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, it does! Thank you for clarifying everything. Restoring tick per Cwmhiraeth's review. Yoninah (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Heterelmis_stephani&oldid=751756010"