Talk:Rhynchocyon

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: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 14:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a new subspecies of giant sengi was discovered in 2021? Source: "Despite the pelage differences, initial DNA comparisons found it nearly identical to R. chrysopygus. A later DNA comparison supported a designation of a new subspecies, Rhynchocyon chrysopygus mandelai as it diverges in pelage and is allopatric to R. chrysopygus (Agwanda et al. 2021)."
• ALT1 ... that a new subspecies of giant sengi was discovered in 2021 in Kenya? Source: "Despite the pelage differences, initial DNA comparisons found it nearly identical to R. chrysopygus. A later DNA comparison supported a designation of a new subspecies, Rhynchocyon chrysopygus mandelai as it diverges in pelage and is allopatric to R. chrysopygus (Agwanda et al. 2021)."
• ALT2 ... that a new Golden-rumped sengi subspecies (Rhynchocyon) was discovered in in Kenya? Source: "Despite the pelage differences, initial DNA comparisons found it nearly identical to R. chrysopygus. A later DNA comparison supported a designation of a new subspecies, Rhynchocyon chrysopygus mandelai as it diverges in pelage and is allopatric to R. chrysopygus (Agwanda et al. 2021)."
• ALT3 ... that a new subspecies of the giant Golden-rumped sengi was discovered in 2021? Source: "Despite the pelage differences, initial DNA comparisons found it nearly identical to R. chrysopygus. A later DNA comparison supported a designation of a new subspecies, Rhynchocyon chrysopygus mandelai as it diverges in pelage and is allopatric to R. chrysopygus (Agwanda et al. 2021)."

• • Reviewed:

5x expanded by Azcolvin429 (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 02:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC).

• QPQ: Kiso 5639 and moved to prep. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 03:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Date, size, expansion, hook, refs, QPQ, copyvio spotcheck, all GTG. Minor disclaimer: the prose script I use does not count tables and bulleted lists, and without them I see only ~2.5-3x expansion. But there is a new large table (with some advanced features) and a new list, so I am AGFing the 5x claim. PS. I added a single citation needed request to one sentence - I ask the nom to comment here on whether it has been addressed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Reference added! And yes, it was not massively expanded, however I am working on more sections in the conservation section today. Thank you for the comments. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 22:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Not happy with 'recently'; hooks must not be likely to change.--Launchballer 17:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Azcolvin429: Another issue with recently is that it's relative to the field but if that's unclear, it could give folks a misleading impression. 2008/7 is recent for the discovery of species, but not recent in other ways. Back in 2007, you could pull your Blackberry out of your ombré jeans and text your friends to meet you at Blockbuster Video so you all could rent a DVD to play on your PS2. Some people could read the hook as meaning that it was discovered earlier this year. I thought some of the reproduction information cited to Rathbun was interesting, including that they're monogamous but spend little time together and the quick development of the offspring, "mall versions of adults and are able to run swiftly within an hour of birth". Good luck, whichever way you go, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Azcolvin429 and Piotrus: have you seen the above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, Fair point, I would be happy to review alternate hooks, as on second thought the current one is also not very interesting. Could of course just change 'recently' to a year and move on, accepting that it won't be very clickable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I know it is not super interesting, its just a little factoid and I expanded the article significantly so figured it would be useful. I initally avoided the year as it is not super recent, but it was not on Wikipedia until I wrote about it and updated corresponding phylogenies and distributions. I should clarify that the expanded article is just the genus. The new subspecies is Rhynchocyon chrysopygus mandelai and is mentioned in the article as well as given a section titled "Kenya subspecies". Maybe the hook should be more specific? Though I wanted to avoid being too technical. I added a few alts. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 06:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

None of the currently proposed hooks (including the new ones) are very interesting. I would suggest moving away from the "newly-discovered" angle as it's clearly not working out. My suggestion would be to try hooks about the subject itself, like something else that's mentioned in the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging AryKun or Kevmin for input on any possible alternative hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Alt4 ... that giant sengis offspring get little maternal care and no paternal care? Rathbun 2013, Azcolvin429 will need to confirm that the wording matches the source
• Alt5 ... that giant sengis form monogamous couples that only come together to mate? Rathbun 2013, Azcolvin429 will need to confirm that the wording matches the source
• Given the 5x expansion, here are several behavior related hooks--Kevmin § 16:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• reviews needed for ALTs 4 and 5. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

ALTs 4 and 5 are both cited in the article and are short enough, with ALT4 edging it interestingness-wise. Let's roll.--Launchballer 20:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• The relevant text from the source (which appears to be Rathbun 2009, not 2013, based on the relevant footnote) is The pair bond is weak, with the animals spending relatively little time in coordinated activities, except when a female is in oestrus, which seems to contradict ALT5 ("relatively little time" isn't none except mating), and No direct paternal investment in neonates has been documented, which doesn't quite back up ALT4: just because it hasn't been documented doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just that scientists haven't seen any. Launchballer, if you're going to approve hooks, it's your responsibility to first check the sources to make sure they concur with the article as to the hook facts. ALT4 might be made usable by adding "known" or "documented" before "paternal" but the article needs to be revised first to match the source; ALT5 probably can't be saved, though the article should still be corrected to match the source. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, I saw "Azcolvin429 will need to confirm that the wording matches the source" and assumed they were offline, because why else would Kevmin not be able to check himself. If it really is in Rathbun 2013, then the source should be switched.--Launchballer 23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

With regard to Alt 4 (and a degree alt 5), we also dont have confirmation that there arent micropockets of cheddar in the earths core, but we arent going to veto a hook about the metallic nature of the core because we havent had a report about it? "just that scientists haven't seen any", presents as a highly anti-science statement, boiling down "what do experts know anyways, they CVOULD be wrong so we have to assume they are wrong."

Additionally I was pinged to provide alternatives, I did not write the article and I did not have to provide any input at all.--Kevmin § 01:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• The nominator hasn't edited since May 20th, so if the issues aren't addressed soon this may have to be closed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• No further interaction from nominator and not progress on hooks suggested, This nom has failed.--Kevmin § 14:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

R. cirnei (threats and conservation)

I plan on writing up the R. cirnei sub-section in the threats and conservation section which is why it is only one sentence currently. The trouble is that there are a lot os subspecies and much of the research is messy because of changes in species names. Notably, R. stuhlmanni now a species was once referred to by various names, most recently R. c. stuhlmanni. Any advice on section structure would he valuable! Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 06:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)