- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Plumalexius
edit
- ... that the extinct Cretaceous wasp family Plumalexiidae is known from only the two Plumalexius (pictured) type specimens found in New Jersey Amber?
- Reviewed: Epacris obtusifolia
Created/expanded by Kevmin (talk). Self nom at 19:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Fram (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The article is jargon-heavy and relies almost entirely on a single source. The only other source, a paper about mushrooms also preserved in amber, is not about the same piece of amber as the one containing the wasps, only has some vague general description of New Jersey ambers, and does not support the specific facts it is used to source (the Turonian date of the amber — all it says is that the New Jersey ambers are Cretaceous). A much lesser problem is that the hook needs wikifying. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please see page 982 of Hibbet et al for specific notation on the Turonian age- "The amber that contained the mushrooms lay just above the South Amboy Fire Clay of the Raritan Formation, thus making it Turonian in age [90–94 million years ago (mya)]." The Plumalexiidae article uses one reference due to the Family, Genus, and species were only described in September. Wikilinks added for the non-intuitive words. --Kevmin § 01:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I missed that in Hibbet et al — sorry. But the plumalexius amber seems to be from a different part of New Jersey — why should a specific stratigraphic dating of one piece of amber be taken to apply to a different one from a different place? And how is this not original research by synthesis? Also re using only one reference because only one reference is available: isn't that a problem with respect to the general notability guideline, which requests multiple sources?
- If you are concered about the possibility of OR on the age then it can be reworded to Cretaceous with mention of the mushrooms being Turonian. In regards to notability Biologic taxa have, tp my understanded been considered inherently notable (see the comments here).--Kevmin § 05:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I dug into the New Jersey Amber research lit more and found a better reference for amber as a whole being considered Turonian in age.--Kevmin § 19:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, that part seems clear enough now, at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Does this mean you have no more reservations about this being approved?--Kevmin § 21:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- It means that my main reservation is now only the one that's harder to address, the single source for almost all of the content. But I'd rather let another DYK editor than me decide whether that's too big a problem or not. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Considering geni (genuses?) are inherently notable, I wouldn't have an issue with a single source. For an individual animal, probably not. For a species, genus, or whatnot, no problemo. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- ok, since that was my only remaining concern, why don't we just mark this one good to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)