Template:Did you know nominations/Agastomyrma
- 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) 06:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Agastomyrma
[edit]- ... that the fossil ant genus Agastomyrma was described from a single queen?
Source:Material. Holotype PIN 3429/1178, PIN 3429/1173 (counterprint of the same specimen), gyne (Dlussky et al 2015 (page 143)
- ALT1:... that the genus name Agastomyrma is derived from Latin and Greek words for "pleasing ant"?
Source: Etymology. From Latin agastus (pleasing) and Greek Myrmica (ant). (Dlussky et al 2015 (page 143)
- Reviewed: Fairy gerygone
Created by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 21:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC).
The page was moved to the mainspace on 9 November, so it is new enough. It is long enough. It has inline citations. It is neutral and does not seem to have copyright violations. I assumed good faith for the offline source. The other source verifies most of the article, but I couldn't find where it states that portions of the head and gaster are missing. Is it verified from the drawing on page 142? The hooks are short. I changed the text so that the hook fact is directly stated in the article and immediately followed by an inline citation. The nominator has done QPQ. This should be good to go if my question is answered. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
By definition, any nomination that should be good to go if a question is answered should not be given a tick, even an AGF one, because that means it is ready to be promoted as is. I've added a "?" icon; once the sourcing issue has been settled on the head and gaster matter, a tick can properly be given. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)- @Gulumeemee: Yes, the head and gaster missing is based on the drawing of the holotype.--Kevmin § 13:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- The article is good to go. My question has been answered. Gulumeemee (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
