Talk:Beddomeia waterhouseae

DYK nomination

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 SL93 (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the range of freshwater snail Beddomeia waterhouseae consists merely of a small tributary in Tasmania? Source: "Distribution: Small tributary of Little Claytons Rivulet, Tasmania" Ponder et. al. (2020). "Beddomeia waterhouseae Ponder & Clark, 1993". Australian Freshwater Molluscs. Revision 1. The Australian Museum.

• Reviewed: Gourd mouth organ (by adopter Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs))

Created/expanded by Kikits (talk). Self-nominated at 03:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC).

• 5x expansion. Need substantial work. --evrik ^(talk) 03:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• Suggest closing this; the nominator is a student in a Wikipedia Education class who hasn't edited for over a month, so I suspect the assignment and any interest in DYK has ended and "[an interesting fact about]" is not the catchiest hook. Belle (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Nomination abandoned. --evrik ^(talk) 18:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I've adopted this per Special:Diff/1033535663; please give me some time to work on this. Thanks! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 08:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Updating icon to reflect current conditions. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'll take this on as a reviewer. I've tapped a friendly scientist Wikipedian on the shoulder to help with the cleanup; I note that there are still a couple of maintenance tags. Please say when the maintenance tags are gone and I'll swing into review action. Schwede66 18:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks for your good work, Ambrosia10; appreciate you chipping in. Thanks also to Rotideypoc41352 for their significant work towards getting this into shape. I've amended the DYK credits accordingly. I've tweaked some references further and removed the two maintenance tags as the issues have been dealt with. There are further referencing issues that extend beyond DYK requirements that I have documented on the article's talk page. You or any other editor may attend to this and that does not need to happen before this going onto the homepage. Significant expansion started on 17 May and this got nominated one week later. Plenty long enough. Adequately referenced. Neutral in tone. Earwig is down (it says it could not find this article!?) so I'll have to come back to this. The hook fact should be more explicitly mentioned in the article; it hints at the small distribution in several places but it does not say so as explicitly as it does in the hook or the references. The hook is certainly interesting. QPQ has been done. This is almost there (Earwig-assessment pending); not much to do to get it over the line. Schwede66 20:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Schwede66: Thank you and Ambrosia10 for your diligence. Try this corrected Earwig link? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks. I was going to check that once the hook fact issue had been dealt with. Schwede66 18:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Schwede66: added hook fact and ref to penultimate paragraph of §Description. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Good to go. Schwede66 20:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Some review comments

I've reviewed this for DYK and have a few comments / thoughts that extend beyond DYK requirements:

• Has anyone checked iNaturalist for a free photo? Or if there are unfree photos, asked the photographer whether they'd be happy to change the licence?
• There are two references that point to a specific page in the 500s and the parameter used was pages (plural). That is often an indication of an editor reporting on the total number of pages in a book (journal) rather than the page where the information can be found. Could somebody check those out? Meanwhile, I've changed the parameter to singular, assuming it does indeed point to the correct page.
• What's currently reference #2 (MolluscaBase, ed. (2021). "Beddomeia waterhouseae Ponder & G. A. Clark, 1993".) is a dead link ("Oops! This taxon is out of scope!"). Could somebody please check?
• There's a mixture of author given names spelled out in full, as initials plus a full stop, and as initials without a full stop. I know that scientists prefer to use initials and whilst I haven't checked the Manual of Style, I would have thought that full names are more useful if readers want to follow up.
• "This species was described by Ponder and Clark in 1993." That's Winston Ponder (I shall wikilink him in the citations) and G.A. Clark going by the sources from the 1990s. We then have publications from the 2010s where Ponder writes further papers with malacologist Stephanie A. Clark (Q29048189), who would obviously abbreviate to S.A. Clark. Is G.A. Clark in the 1990s sources correct? If yes, that would be a strange coincidence.

Lots more fun can be had with this. Schwede66 20:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Schwede66, yes I did check but no images are currently there, freely licensed or not. I also doubled checked the institution that holds the holotype specimen (the Australian Museum) and they too appear not to have digitised their specimens. There are some images in the references but none that are openly licensed. Ambrosia10 (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work on Wikidata and can confirm that indeed, Ponder was initially working with G.A. Clark and in about 2005, S.A. Clark starts to appear. Haven't been able to figure out G.A. Clark's given name. Schwede66 02:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• The DYK hook source has an image. The Australian Museum holds the rights, of course.
• pages param: Only Ponders et al 1994 remains. *mimes old man on lawn shaking fist at clouds* Curse you, paywall! I'll see what I can do, but perhaps @Ambrosia10 and Schwede66: either of you have institutional access? (or are more familiar with Wikipedia Library?)
• MolluscaBase, ed. (2021)...is a dead link Much to my frustration, I have yet to find a way to link so that, to quote the page, we do not have to manually turn off the relevant filter (at the top right of this page) to view the taxon. One would think such a link exists, some fancy URL parameter like &marine-only=no or something. On mobile, one clicks menu icon (three horizontal lines) in the upper right, under which should be two toggles. Flipping the "marine only" from green (the default) to gray (off) does the trick. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)