Template:Did you know nominations/Formica biamoensis

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Formica biamoensis

(

)

... ~~that the worker ant Formica biamoensis was hard to compare to other species due to fossilization as a compression?~~

Reviewed: Arriagadoolithus

Created by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 10:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC).

New and long enough, all non-lead ¶ with citations, QPQ done, hook content is mostly verified with citation to a reliable source (p. 137), a copyvio check reveals no problems. A concern is that the hook states, "... fossilization as a compression", but this does not appear to be stated in the source, which simply states that the comparison was difficult to perform because "all other fossil workers are described after amber specimens using characters not available for our rock fossil". Nothing about fossilization as a compression is mentioned directly in the source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The fossils of the locality are preserved in layers of diatomites, as noted in the Introduction, with the materials section specifying the insectiferous layers in the diatom beds.--Kev min § 01:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kevmin: I like it, but that's a lot to digest, and it's not directly stated in the article as a single sentence. How about this alt below, to make matters clearer for casual readers? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
ALT1: that the worker ant Formica biamoensis is difficult to compare to other species because latter species fossils are based upon amber specimens?

Its not spelled out there, since it falls into the assumed knowledge of the readers of the journal. If you feel alt1 is better I will not object, though I changed "samples" to fossils, as these are organisms.--Kev min § 03:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Good to go for alt1. I struck the hook, because per WP:DYKRULES, "The fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article" (et al.). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)