- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Emplastus edit
- ... that the twelve fossil ant species are placed in the morphogenus Emplastus?
- ALT1:... that the first Emplastus species were described from Croatia?
- Reviewed: Dispersituberoolithus
5x expanded by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 05:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC).
Hook, length, and date verified (original and alt1). AGF offline sources. Note: linked morphogenus. Intelligentsium 23:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)- N.b. Copyvio checks revealed no problems (e.g. [1]). North America1000 09:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
No inline citations exist in the article verifying content for the hook nor for ALT1. North America1000 09:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I saw them in one of the sources when I was doing the review, I can add them in when I get home today if the author doesn't get there first. Intelligentsium 13:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)- @Northamerica1000: The total species count is based of the numbers in Dlussky & Putyatina (2014) and Dlussky, Rasnitsyn, & Perfilieva (2015) which dont reference each other. The Radoboj species were the earliest species described, with E. ocellus described by Heer in 1849 (as F. ocella). So Dlussky & Putyatina (2014) is the reference for alt 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevmin (talk • contribs) 16:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Intelligentsium and Kevmin: Per DYK rules #3, "Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact." (underline emphasis mine). North America1000 04:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies, that was my mistake; I read it in the source and so incorrectly assumed it was cited in the article. Now fixed (for alt 1). Intelligentsium 12:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Northamerica1000: I had placed a citation for alt one already, and have added an additional web based citation for hook 1.--Kevmin § 17:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Good to go for both hook and alt. AGF for offline source for the alt. North America1000 15:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
