- The following discussion 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 Allen3 talk 16:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Musca edit
- ... that Musca is the only
extantconstellation that depicts an insect?
Improved to Good Article status by Casliber (talk). Self nominated at 00:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC).
- Reviewed - Template:Did you know nominations/Leave Home
Meets the eligibility criteria (new GA, adequately footnoted, no evidence of copyvio or other policy issues, QPQ is done). Hook is in the article and is supported by source, which says it is the only constellation that depicts an insect. My only concern is with the word "extant". It seems to me that pretty much any constellation that has ever been proposed is still in existence (i.e., extant). In this context, it's clear that the scope of the statement is being limited to constellations that are formally accepted by IAU, but the word "extant" doesn't convey that properly. Could we substitute "recognized"? Or is there another word for this? --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- "Official" - there are 88 officially recognised constellations according to the IAU. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Works for me. Let's go with this revised wording:
- ALT1A ... that Musca is the only official constellation that depicts an insect? --Orlady (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
