Template:Did you know nominations/Toxotes lorentzi
- 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 Montanabw(talk) 18:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Toxotes lorentzi edit
... that Toxotes lorentzi is sometimes known as the "primitive archerfish" because it lacks the distinctive markings on its sides characteristic of other archerfish?
5x expanded by Intelligentsium (talk). Self-nominated at 23:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC).
Article expansion new enough, and just barely long enough with new material. Article referenced with The phrase "...Prototoxotes a synonym of Toxotes, where T. lorentzi is properly placed." is not well worded though. Biology does not use the term properly for placement, I would suggest "currently" or "usually" as a better word choice. Also I am not seeing a specific link between the vernacular name and the hypothesized basal nature of the species.--Kevmin § 14:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the review. The article is at 2358 chars by my count. I should have been more clear; the phrase "where T. lorentzi is properly placed" is in the opinion of later authors as mentioned earlier in the sentence (the source is Allen but there are others). However I've made the change you suggested. I'm not sure I understand your final comment? The vernacular name is the "primitive archerfish". Intelligentsium 14:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- In my character count, per dyk rules I didn't count the lead and last sentences of the article, as they are essentially unchanged from before the expansion, and thus not countable. Allen doesn't use the term "properly" though, and its a tern that I rarely if ever see used in taxonomy for a placement. I more often see term such as "better" "closer relation too" etc.. which express the ambiguity of taxonomy in general and the fluid nature of placements. Regarding the name, unless there is a citation that actually links the two though, it falls afoul of wp:OR to assert a connection. The same problem exists with taxon name etymologies, where the describing author does not provide one, any assertion of what the name means is OR.--Kevmin § 17:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what rule you're referring to - I was under the impression 5x expansion meant 5x with new content, not 5x as much new content in addition to what was there previously. But as long as it's long enough that's not a sticking point, and I might add some more in the next few days as well.
- However I take your point with regards to the hook - it's pretty likely this is the etymology (and I was almost sure it's what one of the sources said - double checking though, they all dance around it) but I agree we can't draw the connection on Wikipedia. How about
- ALT 1: ... that Gilbert Whitley thought Toxotes lorentzi was more primitive than other archerfish because it lacks the distinctive side markings characteristic of its genus?
- Intelligentsium 14:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I may have misremembered regarding the character count. I know that material from other articles included into an article does not. However its a moot point, since the article is long enough already. The article and new hook look almost good to go, though I would remove the "(hence its common name)" statement, as its not citable that I know of. then it should be good to go.--Kevmin § 21:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for your review. Intelligentsium 23:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
