Talk:Plecia avus

Did you know nomination

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 RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

adult Plecia avus fossil

• ... that it was suggested the fossil march fly Plecia avus could turn out be one of four other species? Source: Rice 1959 P. avus description and discussion section.
  • ALT1: ... that upon redescription of the fossil marchfly Plecia avus an additional seven specimens were identified? Source: Rice 1959 P. avus description and discussion section.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Prosantosaurus

Moved to mainspace by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 14:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - ALT0 seems faulty

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is in good shape, but ALT0 might be uncorrectly worded: I've no expertise in entomology, but I what's currently in the article ([...] he mused on the possibility they might intergrade enough to be a single species rather than multiple species) sounds like they could all be a single species, not four different ones. And I read the hook as implying that there might not be a fifth, because the DYK article subject could be one of the other four. Which interpretation is correct @Kevmin? And then either hook or article must be corrected. –LordPeterII (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Taxonomically both article and hook are correct. Rice is saying that with further specimens, the named species "might" be grouped under as few as one species name, he did feel he had enough fossils to make the call. As such the hook is right, in that P. avus could be termed a junior synonym of one of the other species, however there is the possibility that they will not group together under one species, but under several or not at all.--Kevmin § 18:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Kevmin: Ah, I see. Could you harmonize hook and article a little then? Your explanations helped my understand, but without them I think a reader would not understand that the article says the same as the hook. (Unless you prefer to go with ALT1 anyway, then I will just strike ALT0 and this discussion is moot.) –LordPeterII (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• @LordPeterII: To be honest, they do say the same thing, IF the species are syonymized, the choses name could be any one of the five species epithets, or there may be several species that are sister species but not the smae species. The hook indicate that P. avus may be lumped into one of four other species, as does the article, which states it as the 5 species may be lumpable under one species (name). If you disagree with the alt0 wording then you should just go with Alt1.--Kevmin § 20:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Kevmin: Well, I guess you are correct about this; but I am still confused a little. I'll just strike the original one and approve ALT1, it seems safer.

Approve ALT1. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)