Talk:Hipposideros atrox

Mammals: Bats Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Bats Task Force (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by SL93 (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that it took almost 100 years to recognize the lesser bicolored leaf-nosed bat as a full species? Source: This species was listed under Hipposideros bicolor, but is now considered distinct following Douangboubpha et al. (2010).

Reviewed: Decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts

Created by Enwebb (talk). Self-nominated at 15:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

The date and the length of the article are OK. I'll do other checks later, but I am having a problem with the hook, or rather, with the sources used to justify the hook. First, there needs to be a citation at the end of the first sentence of the Taxonomy section. Second, it would be hugely preferable to source the statement that the bat was discovered in 1918 by Andersen to a non-primary source, that is to some source other than Andersen himself. Third, the quote you provide above suggests that the bat was recognized as a full species around 2010, which is less than 100 years after 1918. It would be better to provide a more precise reference or to reword the hook. Finally, I suggest that you consider alternate hook/hooks that are more precise. E.g. something like : "... that lesser bicolored leaf-nosed bat was first described by Knud Andersen in 1918 but was only recognized as a full species after 2010?" [or "more than 90 years later" instead of 2010]. Nsk92 (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nsk92, I duplicated the Andersen ref and the IUCN ref after the fact in question, that the taxon was described in 1918. Do you think it's misleading to refer to a time period of 92 years as "almost 100 years"? I think that your alt hook is longer and less interesting. Enwebb (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do think that describing 92 years as "almost 100 years" is misleading and a bit OR-ish. Please use a different hook. It does not need to be the one I suggested (the hook I suggested is 134 characters long), but it does need to be more accurate than the current hook. ~~Also, could you explain what kind of a source ref no. 1 is? I could not quite understand what this source is. And where in it can I find the quote you provide above in support of the original hook?~~ Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, never mind about the last bit. I just noticed a link to the pdf file there and downloaded the document itself. It would be good to incorporate a link to the pdf file itself [1] in the ref. Nsk92 (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nsk92, I really think that this is an example of a routine calculation, not OR. But fine: Enwebb (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alt1:... that it took 92 years to recognize the lesser bicolored leaf-nosed bat as a full species?

Also the reference is linked? The doi is a link to the html version of that PDF you just linked. Enwebb (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Alt1 hook looks better, but it is still somewhat unclear. Specifically the wording is unclear as to 92 years from what? Something like "that it took 92 years after it was first described to recognize ..." or "that it took 92 years after it was first described in 1918 to recognize ..." would be better. Regarding the pdf file, I meant linking the title of the paper to the pdf file itself, rather than to the article page. I added such links to refs 1 and 4, as the other refs already had them. A few other, smaller, things: In the first sentence of the Taxonomy section, please replace citation to ref 1 by citation to ref 4, since the latter discusses the issue in detail. For refs 3 and 5, it would be good to expand them to include the info indicating what the acronyms AMS and ITIS used there mean, American Society of Mammalogists and Integrated Taxonomic Information System (or at least include wikilinks to these WP articles). Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IUCN is a perfectly adequate and secondary source to cite for the authority of this taxon--see where authority is listed under the taxonomy section of the assessment. It's better than the primary source of the 2010 journal article in question. Authors can propose any kind of scientific name or taxonomic reassessment they want but it doesn't matter unless it's recognized by other taxonomists and databases. Enwebb (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alt2:... that it took 92 years to recognize the lesser bicolored leaf-nosed bat as a full species, not a subspecies?

ALT2 hook reads OK, thank you. I have no issue with IUCN being a reliable source, but it only mentions Andersen's work once, while ref 4 discusses Andersen in detail. If you don't want to replace ref 1 by ref 4 in that sentence, I would be OK with adding ref 4 to that sentence as an extra cite. Also please replace some of the occurrences of "it" in the last three sections by Hipposideros atrox (or some other noun). Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think having two sources that the taxon was described in 1918 is plenty and three would be overkill. Does this fact not seem supported? The 2010 reference is most relevant to it being recognized as a full species, which is the context in which it is referenced later in this section. I have replaced a pronoun with H. atrox in the conservation section.

Two secondary sources for a single fact is far from an overkill. As I said, the IUCN only mentions Andersen 1918 once, with no details or explanations or details, just as "Hipposideros atrox Andersen, 1918". The other source, from Acta Chiropterologica, discusses Andersen in detail and in context. Please add the citation to Acta Chiropterologica that sentence in the article. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IUCN is a taxonomic authority. That is how taxonomic authorities and databases report authority. I am uninterested in pursuing this further, so you can go ahead and fail the nom. Enwebb (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As, you wish, I am closing the nom as declined. Nsk92 (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]