Template:Did you know nominations/Boltonimecia


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Boltonimecia

 * ... that the possibly blind extinct ant Boltonimecia (illustrated) has a shield like head? "Sections of the specimen were re-polished and a number of new details became visible, allowing for the re-description of the extinct species into a new genus, Boltonimecia. The head is small and wider than long, with a generally triangular outline in dorsal view. The upper surface is thickened into a shield with a curved and raised profile and two elongated processes extend out and slightly forward from the rear of the head. The eyes are either reduced to such a degree that they are not visible, or are possibly lost all together, and no ocelli]are visible.Insecta Mundi
 * Reviewed: Seycellesa, Traklosia
 * Comment: Reviewed Seycellesa of the nom.

Created by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 01:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC).




 * As a note, the dyk review template is atrocious, could you please simplify with bullet-points if possible.
 * Extinct is explicit in the History and classification section (known from a single cretaceous fossil, there-by not extant.) The Boltonimecia images are NOT sourced from antweb, as should be clear with the sourcing that is supplied with the images.  They are sourced from Borysenko's 2017 BioRxiv preprint, which is clearly cc-by-4.0 licenced:

"Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license."
 * As such the images in the preprint version on BioRxiv are cc-by-4.0 and available for use. What exactly are you meaning with "roll over text"?  The head is addressed in both the redescription of the type:

"Head small compared with the rest of the body (1/5 of body length), slightly wider than long, seems to be triangular when seen from above. Its dorsal part thick, raised and curved in profile, thus forming a “shield”"
 * and in the discussion section on page 7:

"Regarding the last, the lack of eyes and ocelli, as well as long sensory hairs on the anterior head margin may suggest a cryptic lifestyle. However, blind extant ants are not always exclusively subterranean (e.g., Dorylus Fabricius), and long legs of Boltonimecia speak in favor of an arboreal or above-ground lifestyle. The possibility that the eyes of Boltonimecia are reduced to a single facet, and thus simply invisible in amber cannot be rejected either.
 * Both the shield like appearance and the probable blind nature are supported in the text.

PS, As noted I reviewed Seycellesa of the Seycellesa, Traklosia nomination.-- Kev min  § 21:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you do not like the template. The QPQ was a mistake, I thought I had that set to yes.
 * * Regarding the items, I did say that the two images were both on a separate page from the antweb one, I said see [2]. (eg). Anyway, I said that the page where the images came from does not have the images on it, so it really does not prove the images came from that page. If you get images from a page, it should show copies of them. Thoughts?
 * * This is my first QPQ with an image for it. The DYK rules say that the images should have rollover text. These do not. Can you help with this rule? *Nevermind, I figured out what this means and how to test it. It works and passes the test.
 * * Regarding your hook sources. Your hook is a fairly easy one to understand. No difficult science is required to understand it. I tried a little to find the technical information you said backs up your hook, but it is not there in the article content. The sources are not easy to look through. Some are offline sources. This hook should be easy to provide content in the article and must be backed by inline citations unless the information is offline. Please try to provide some content I can clearly locate and verify. You may need to do a little rewriting or reorganizing. I would appreciate that. If you want an example, the first bit you mention being in the classification section is not there, but a part of it is in the lead. Other bits I could not find in the article at all. Or a piece that says it's on page 7, page 7 of what? Thank you. dawnleelynn(talk) 00:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The images are on that page (which has copy of the cc-by-4 licenced pdf in question here) The images were taken from that preprint pdf and added to commons. The "roll-over text" is for the image provided in the hook, not for images in the source. Page 7 of Borysenko's 2017. I copied the exact passages here, that are in Borysenko to this page that are cited in the article. Again : Head Shield- "Head small compared with the rest of the body (1/5 of body length), slightly wider than long, seems to be triangular when seen from above. Its dorsal part thick, raised and curved in profile, thus forming a “shield”" ( Borysenko 2017 page 4 -Redescription of type) Possibly Blind- "Regarding the last, the lack of eyes and ocelli, as well as long sensory hairs on the anterior head margin may suggest a cryptic lifestyle. However, blind extant ants are not always exclusively subterranean (e.g., Dorylus Fabricius), and long legs of Boltonimecia speak in favor of an arboreal or above-ground lifestyle. The possibility that the eyes of Boltonimecia are reduced to a single facet, and thus simply invisible in amber cannot be rejected either." ( Borysenko 2017 page 5 (not 7 apologies) discussion paragraph 3) I HAVE provided the exact information, both as inline citations to the sources, and as direct quotes here, for the information in the hook. Peer-reviewed papers on new species/genera of extinct organisms are not easy to understand, ever, unless you are already familiar with the subject. There wont be an easy to understand source for the information. As for extinct, the ONLY described specimen of the genus is entombed in Cretaceous amber, and the genus is in an extinct subfamily should not mean that "extinct" needs a citation. its citation overkill, but i have cited it (to Borysenko 2017 who states the species (and thus genus) are part of the extinct subfamily Sphecomyrminae right in the introductory paragraph.-- Kev min  § 00:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, my apologies, there seems to have been some vagueness as to whether we were talking content or sources in some of this discussion. To be clear, I now have the sources I need for the hook. I still need a bit of help with the article text. To try to make things clearer, I have added the information to the hook the way it is done in the template initially. (Some use this feature, some don't, I always do.) Please see what I have added after the hook in the way of what we have so far for the article text and source. And then, in italics, I have listed what is still needed. If you can fill that in, and one of us can make sure it has an inline citation(s), that should be everything we need. I appreciate what you added to the article. btw, I was looking for some simpler content in the article, not the source. Thank you, though. Again, "the hook fact must be stated in the article and must be immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source." We are almost there.
 * Just as an fyi to you, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/16/051367 The images are not on this page until you click "Download PDF." So, it's not crystal clear to anyone looking for the images. But I approve this now. You might want to add a note to Commons page.
 * http://journals.fcla.edu/mundi/article/view/104678 I only saw this source as one small page. It wasn't until you referred me to it specifically and to specific page numbers that I investigated further and noticed the words Full Text at the bottom with a very tiny link that said PDF. Again, not an obvious source to a reviewer. Now I see the whole article in PDF. Thanks for your patience very much. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest, at this point Im not sure what more to do, I have provided the information, in-line, in the article, and both linked to the original source, and posted here verbatim what the source says. It is very clear from what I can see.-- Kev min  § 03:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg My most sincere apologies. I must have looked at this content too many times. This time looking at the article after your last message I saw the additional content that is needed in the article. I pasted it after the hook with the other content. It's all backed up by that source whose link is after the hook, I believe. Also, the rollover text works on the image here in the template, so now I know what that test was, thanks for helping, it was in the DYK review checklist, and that was my first time. This was only my third QPQ so I am sorry for the problems. I am also a relatively new editor, about 1 1/2 years. Your article is an excellent article from what I can tell; I am not totally without some understanding; I went to college. Oh, yes, and I had change up the inline citations a bit to get the whole content that is needed cited. You might call it overkill, but actually policy calls for citing every line in actuality. You can redo it after the DYK is over if you like. Best wishes, dawnleelynn(talk) 04:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)