Template:Did you know nominations/Gesomyrmex macrops


 * 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 Yoninah (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Gesomyrmex macrops

 * ... that Gesomyrmex macrops has the largest eye to head diameter of the three described Bol’shaya Svetlovodnaya fossil site Gesomyrmex ant species? Source: "Differs from other species of Svetlovodnaya by large eyes. (Dlussky et al 2015)


 * Reviewed: Necromys
 * Comment: reviewed northern grass mouse of the nomination

Created by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 00:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC).

 * Some issues found.  * Some overall issues detected Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 22:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * &#x2713; This article is new and was created on 19:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * &#x2713; This article meets the DYK criteria at 2148 characters
 * &#x2717; Paragraphs [3] (The ... length.) in this article lack a citation.
 * &#x2713; This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
 * &#x2713; A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (3.8% confidence; confirm)
 * Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
 * &#x2713; The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 123 characters
 * &#x2717; Kevmin has more than 5 DYK credits. A QPQ review is required for this nomination.
 * &#x2717; Template:Did you know nominations/Necromys appears to have been used as QPQ for Template:Did you know nominations/Archencyrtus, Template:Did you know nominations/Ceratomyrmex, Template:Did you know nominations/Bradoponera, Template:Did you know nominations/New Jersey amber, Template:Did you know nominations/Ulteramus, Template:Did you know nominations/Ypresiosirex, Template:Did you know nominations/Cuspilongus, Template:Did you know nominations/Formica paleosibirica, Template:Did you know nominations/Gesomyrmex macrops
 * Symbol question.svg Although big and new enough, there is only one reference. To show notability I expect at least two references. Hook is short enough. QPQ fail, as Northern grass mouse already claimed in Template:Did you know nominations/Archencyrtus. It was from a multi article hook, so perhaps another was intended. On the hook side of things, what is in the hook is not stated in the article.  I don't see "largest" or "larger than everything else".  Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Two sources for a fossil (or any) species that was described less then a year ago, has never been a wiki or dyk requirement. Taxa are defaulted to notable, and the majority of life will rarely have more then a single reference to go by.
 * I will do another QPQ as I missed the duplicate use.
 * I reread the reference and clarified the article & hook to largest "eye diameter to head length".-- Kev min § 00:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There would be more tertiary references around, eg https://www.antweb.org/description.do?genus=gesomyrmex&species=macrops&rank=species, http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=326836. An article about a taxa certainly should avoid a speedy delete, but automatic notability is not assured. After all anyone can make up a taxa, even me. They are basically a human construction. But if others recognise it, then it proves that it is notable. I am not rejecting based on lack of notability.  I just expect the references to prove it! On the QPQ it is possible that you have missed using one.  DYKbot above failed to observe that it was a multiarticle hook, and which articles you claimed already. But it miht be easier to do a new QPQ than to work out what was not claimed already! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The entries ad atweb and fossilworks have only duplicated the information (with less clarity) that is in the type description. If you have qualms about the inherant notability of species, that is a discussion to take up at WP:TOL.  The current practice is of inherent notability and that has been upheld here at DYK.
 * I agree that it will be easier to do another QPQ and am working on that now.-- Kev min § 17:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * QPQ for Template:Did you know nominations/Anyuyskiy Volcano
 * Symbol confirmed.svg QPQ is OK. Hook is now in the article and confirmed in the reference, and the new version is short enough. Only having a single reference is not the best, but it does not have to stop DYK. Copyvio check reveals copying from Formica paleosibirica, but since the same author wrote it, it is only a reduction in the character count and not an infringement.  Ready to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I came to promote this but think the hook needs rephrasing, "largest eye to head diameter" seeming pretty meaningless to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * alt1 "that Gesomyrmex macrops was named for in reference to the species large eyes?"

How about this one then.-- Kev min  § 12:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The alt1 may be factually right, but I think it is missing an apostrophe so how about :
 * alt2 "that Gesomyrmex macrops was named in reference to the species' large eyes?"
 * We also need to hear from who addressed my previous concerns. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I did forget the apostrophe when I suggested alt1, if there are no problems now with the alt shall we see what thinks?-- Kev  min  § 19:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt2 looks good to me. I suggest you give it the tick and then I will be able to promote it if nobody else does. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not allowed to tick my own hook though! But if this was allowed then yes I would approve. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Approving Alt2, which is cited inline, and striking the other hooks, otherwise relying on Graeme Bartlett's review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)