Template:Did you know nominations/Lesula

The following discussion 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 Allen3 ^talk 11:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Article under minimum required size of 1500 characters of readable prose, no progress toward correcting problem for over 2 weeks.

Lesula

(

)

... that the first new species of monkey in 28 years was just discovered?

Created/expanded by MaxVeers (talk). Nominated by Cyde (talk) at 16:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It was discovered in 2007, it has just been published now as the article says. Also the name of the species should be visible in the hoo I think. Would be good with a slightly larger article a paragraph or two more should be possible to write based on the published article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree. Right now below the DYK minimum. Even though there are only 3 sources listed, there is plenty of material, which should make it easy to formulate a few more paragraphs. Anne (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  - There's also another really good image from the same source as the one here - it's simply a headshot of a Lesula, which admittedly isn't in the article right now, but would work really well for DYK. Miyagawa (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but the statement is false. See Kipunji for a high profile example and Primates described in the 2000s for several others just in the last decade. --Aranae (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the BBC reported as being the second new species of monkey in 28 years. Miyagawa (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've heard this and a few similar statements. Second new African mammal in 28 years, 2nd new monkey species in 28 years, and 2nd new African monkey species in 28 years. They aren't true, though: Cercocebus sanjei 1986, Cercopithecus solatus 1988, Miopithecus ogouensis 1997, and Rungwecebus kipunji 2006. We shouldn't perpetuate these errors. It's possible that whoever originally made the statement had actually said "first African monkey discovered in 28 years", but was splitting hairs to make this work. Both Cercocebus sanjei and Miopithecus ogouensis were known prior to their formal description. Meanwhile Cercopithecus solatus was first found in 1984, but formally described in 1988. So if by "discovered", we mean found but not formally reported in the literature, then the kipunji would be the only other African monkey "discovered" since C. solatus was "discovered" in 1984. There is, however, no way this was the only African mammal (see lots and lots of new rodents and shrews) or the only monkey (see lots of new South American species) in this timeframe.--Aranae (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Article is 1203 prose characters according to DYKcheck, well under the minimum 1500 required for DYK. The hook fact is not supported by an inline source at the end of the relevant sentence in the article, without even taking into consideration the above discussion. Haven't bothered with a paraphrase check under the circumstances, since it would be to do all over again if the article is expanded above the minimum to the point it is no longer a stub (also a requirement of DYK). The fact that no expansion has been done in the past two weeks is disappointing; if nothing happens within the next week, the review will end. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Still 1203 characters long. Please type in more text. Nominator is apparently not around the wiki these days. ~~Author~~^{Article creator} was just notified. --PFHLai (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that the problem is not merely more text, but a broader disagreement as noted in the discussion above, and that needs to be addressed by formulating a new, more accurate hook if the article is expanded. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I am too much of an optimist, but I hope that everything here can be fixed once we bring in the article creator, the person with the refs in hand. --PFHLai (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Not at all: I think it's quite doable. If I'm reading the above correctly, the hook change might be as little as adding "African" before "monkey" and changing "first" to "second". BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Article remains, at 1203 prose characters, well below the DYK minimum over a month after its nomination, with no edits for weeks. There is clearly insufficient interest in bringing it up to DYK standards, and it has not qualified for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)