Template:Did you know nominations/Andrena antoinei


 * 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 Allen3 talk 13:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Andrena antoinei

 * ... that the extinct mining bee Andrena antoinei (pictured) has coloration of black, brown, and yellow?


 * Reviewed: Conospermum

Created by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 04:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC).


 * I'll review this. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC).
 * I have compared this article to the journal which is cited throughout and to my layman's eye, this article seems to be accurate. However, there is one issue which ought to be addressed before this goes on the mainpage:
 * "A morphometric analysis of the wings indicates placement into the bee family Andrenidae, though specific features of the family, such as two sulci under the antenna and pointed glossa in the mouth parts." – you have missed something here: according to the article, the absence of the sulci and glossa is problematic, but you seem to have missed out the end of this sentence which says that.
 * Otherwise, I see no close paraphrasing or copyright issues; naturally some facts are presented similarly, but there is little way around it and I am pleased with the way you have summarised the technical and detailed journal contents in an encyclopedic manner.
 * The hook is within the size limits; the whole thing, including links is 121 characters.
 * The article's prose section is c. 3769 characters, so very much acceptable; it is neutral too.
 * The article is cited to a reliable and scholarly source throughout; its subject is a newly discovered and described (2014) species of extinct bee, so the one journal is probably the only in-depth source about it. A quick Google search seems to confirm this.
 * The journal, PLOS One, is open-access and has the following notice in the cited material: "Copyright: 2014 Dehon et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited." The image of the bee has been tagged with the CC BY-SA 4.0, which cites the author and links to the article.
 * Hook: this hook is fine grammatically and matches the article text which is sourced. I wonder whether a more exciting hook is possible, given that most people would assume that bees are yellow, black and brown anyway; if not, perhaps you could explain which parts are coloured yellow, black and brown.

All in all, this article seems to meet the requirement; if you can correct the sentence above and perhaps take a look at the hook. Ping me when you have replied. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC).
 * Andrena antoinei reading the comments section and the results sections of the article, both sections make it clear that placement into the family is certain, placement into the Andrininae is fairly certain, and placement into the hyperdiverse genus Andrena is due to lack of specific features that would differentiate the species into another genus.-- Kev min  § 01:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * that's fine, I don't deny that, but please re-read that line I quote:
 * The wikipedia text reads: "A morphometric analysis of the wings indicates placement into the bee family Andrenidae, though specific features of the family, such as two sulci under the antenna and pointed glossa in the mouth parts."
 * You are missing something from the last clause of the sentence—it should read, I believe, something like this: "though specific features of the family, such as two sulci under the antenna and pointed glossa in the mouth parts are absent in the specimen." It's a grammatical issue, nothing more, but it changes the meaning somewhat. The article is otherwise fine. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC).
 * Oh, I see now, my apologies. I have adjusted the sentence to make it actually complete!-- Kev  min  § 15:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Okay, I am happy with this for all the reasons outlined above. The hook isn't very exciting, but then this is an extinct species of bee... Ready to go. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ALT1: ... that a solitary fossil of the extinct mining bee Andrena antoinei (pictured) was classified by family and genus through a process of deduction? Yoninah (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I dont find alt1 to be interesting at all to be honest. I still prefer the opening hook, which is about color preserved in a fossil. -- Kev  min  § 00:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's worth mentioning that the colours have survived despite the insect being fossilise for so many years – that might make it more interesting. —Noswall59 (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC).