- 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 MeegsC (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Palaeopsychops
Palaeopsychops timmi wing fossil
- ... that the Eocene lacewing Palaeopsychops (wing pictured) likely migrated from Denmark to the Pacific Northwest via Greenland? Source: Archibald & Makarkin 2006 "Dispersal" section
- ALT1:... that species of the Eocene lacewing Palaeopsychops (wing pictured) are thought to have travelled through Greenland? Source: Archibald & Makarkin 2006 "Dispersal" section
- Reviewed: Boophis haingana
Moved to mainspace by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 14:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC).
A fine article. New enough, long enough, no copyvio, QPQ is done. The image has a caption, is used in the article, and published under Creative Commons. I prefer the first hook. However, I would request that the said hook be adjusted to better match the text of the article - as of now, it is not directly stated within the article that Palaeopsychops travelled from Denmark via Greenland to the Pacific Northwest. Perhaps it could be changed to
... that the Eocene lacewing Palaeopsychops (wing pictured) likely migrated from northern Europe to North America via Greenland?
This would match the article's content more precisely. Applodion (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)- @Applodion: The precision is accurate based on the first section of the Distribution & age section, which specifically documents the known locations of Paleopsychops fossil occurrences, eg only the Fur formation in Denmark, and only the Okanagan Highlands lagerstatten in South Central British Columbia plus northeastern central Washington. This makes the alt hook less accurate by implying much wider known distribution in both North America and Europe. --Kevmin § 17:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Kevmin: I read the section in question, and it only implies this way as it lists the different locations where Palaeopsychops was found. However, as I said, the hook has to reflect the article's text, not just implications or content gleaned from summarizing different article parts. Could you please adjust the article to mention the exact distribution way? Applodion (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Applodion: I have added "Denmark and the Okanagan highlands" to the sentence in question, with an additional reference to Archibald & Makarkin 2006.--Kevmin § 22:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
-
- Kevmin, wouldn't it be more accurate to call them "Eocene Palaeopsychops lacewings", given that there are multiple species? MeegsC (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
