This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska 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.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
A fact from Republica (plant) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 July 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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.
... that while both are named from the same place, the genus Republica(pictured) is not the genus Republica?
Source: Archibald & Cannings 2021 doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4966.3.11materials and methods for location data "We examined a single fossil in lacustrine shale recovered from exposure B4131 of the Tom Thumb Tuff Member
of the Klondike Mountain Formation at Republic, Washington, U.S.A."
Wolfe & Wehr 1987 doi:10.3133/b1597 page 2 fig 1 shows the location in Republic of site 8428 of the Klondike Mountain Formation, page 22 gives the genus etymology and 23 the type locality occurrence in Republic
Overall: My first time reviewing a dual-article nomination, and I appreciate the effort which must have gone into it!
Both articles moved to mainspace yesterday. QPQ is done. No plagiarism detected via Earwig. For both articles, length, referencing and image licensing are all good. For the insect, I think that the first paragraph of "Description" and of "Paleoenvironment" are both a bit long and ought to be split up a bit, and that "Paleoenvironment" should have at least one image - even the location map over at Klondike Mountain Formation would be really helpful. For the plant, you really should move the distribution images a couple of paragraphs down to avoid MOS:SANDWICH, and the last sentence of the lead is missing a period. Still, I would not hold up the nomination for those reasons alone.
To me, it is the hook which has multiple significant issues. It may not be grammatically correct (shouldn't it be named after the same place, not named from the same place?), it is really confusing and vague, as you have no way to tell what place is actually being referred to without clicking on both links, and I feel that a lot of readers would just say "So what?" when they see it as currently written. Suggested wording: Alt1"...that extinct plants and damselflies from the Eocene were discovered and named after Republic in Washington?"
I also think that both articles should have a sentence which makes this connection between the two more explicit than the mere hatnote at the top. Lastly, you should at least add DOI and ISBN links to your DYK citations. Right now, there is no way to tell which citation refers to which fossil without going through the articles' references, and we should not have to do that. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
InformationToKnowledge The hook as written is a play on the hemihomonym use of the genus name Republica for both a plant and an animal, but I like alt1 as well. I've added the dois for each source and a map to Republica weatbrooki, plus added splits in the Description and Paleoenvironment sections. A sentence calling out the hemihomonymy has been added to each article under classification. The image/map placement for Republics (plant) is more problematic though. I edit on a wide screen desktop monitor, and my view of the article has the maps already almost all the way down to the start of References. Ideally I was wanting a single map, but I wasn't able to find one I could make work for the West coast sites plus Alaska.--Kevmin§18:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taking conciseness into account and a matching the details of the articles:
We may be waiting a while for them, as they haven't edited since the 14th, and the frequency of edits was tapering off before that.--Kevmin§18:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first time reviewing a dual-article nomination, and I appreciate the effort which must have gone into it!