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
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 a new subspecies of giant sengi was discovered in 2021? Source: "Despite the pelage differences, initial DNA comparisons found it nearly identical to R. chrysopygus. A later DNA comparison supported a designation of a new subspecies, Rhynchocyon chrysopygus mandelai as it diverges in pelage and is allopatric to R. chrysopygus (Agwanda et al. 2021)."
ALT1 ... that a new subspecies of giant sengi was discovered in 2021 in Kenya? Source: "Despite the pelage differences, initial DNA comparisons found it nearly identical to R. chrysopygus. A later DNA comparison supported a designation of a new subspecies, Rhynchocyon chrysopygus mandelai as it diverges in pelage and is allopatric to R. chrysopygus (Agwanda et al. 2021)."
ALT2 ... that a new Golden-rumped sengi subspecies (Rhynchocyon) was discovered in in Kenya? Source: "Despite the pelage differences, initial DNA comparisons found it nearly identical to R. chrysopygus. A later DNA comparison supported a designation of a new subspecies, Rhynchocyon chrysopygus mandelai as it diverges in pelage and is allopatric to R. chrysopygus (Agwanda et al. 2021)."
ALT3 ... that a new subspecies of the giant Golden-rumped sengi was discovered in 2021? Source: "Despite the pelage differences, initial DNA comparisons found it nearly identical to R. chrysopygus. A later DNA comparison supported a designation of a new subspecies, Rhynchocyon chrysopygus mandelai as it diverges in pelage and is allopatric to R. chrysopygus (Agwanda et al. 2021)."
Date, size, expansion, hook, refs, QPQ, copyvio spotcheck, all GTG. Minor disclaimer: the prose script I use does not count tables and bulleted lists, and without them I see only ~2.5-3x expansion. But there is a new large table (with some advanced features) and a new list, so I am AGFing the 5x claim. PS. I added a single citation needed request to one sentence - I ask the nom to comment here on whether it has been addressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here10:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Reference added! And yes, it was not massively expanded, however I am working on more sections in the conservation section today. Thank you for the comments.
Andrew Z. Colvin •
Talk22:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Azcolvin429: Another issue with recently is that it's relative to the field but if that's unclear, it could give folks a misleading impression. 2008/7 is recent for the discovery of species, but not recent in other ways. Back in 2007, you could pull your Blackberry out of your ombré jeans and text your friends to meet you at Blockbuster Video so you all could rent a DVD to play on your PS2. Some people could read the hook as meaning that it was discovered earlier this year. I thought some of the reproduction information cited to
Rathbun was interesting, including that they're monogamous but spend little time together and the quick development of the offspring, "mall versions of adults and are able to run swiftly within an hour of birth". Good luck, whichever way you go,
Rjjiii (
talk)
06:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I know it is not super interesting, its just a little factoid and I expanded the article significantly so figured it would be useful. I initally avoided the year as it is not super recent, but it was not on Wikipedia until I wrote about it and updated corresponding phylogenies and distributions. I should clarify that the expanded article is just the genus. The new subspecies is Rhynchocyon chrysopygus mandelai and is mentioned in the article as well as given a section titled "Kenya subspecies". Maybe the hook should be more specific? Though I wanted to avoid being too technical. I added a few alts.
Andrew Z. Colvin •
Talk06:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
None of the currently proposed hooks (including the new ones) are very interesting. I would suggest moving away from the "newly-discovered" angle as it's clearly not working out. My suggestion would be to try hooks about the subject itself, like something else that's mentioned in the article.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions)
00:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Alt4 ... that giant sengis offspring get little maternal care and no paternal care? Rathbun 2013,
Azcolvin429 will need to confirm that the wording matches the source
Alt5 ... that giant sengis form monogamous couples that only come together to mate? Rathbun 2013,
Azcolvin429 will need to confirm that the wording matches the source
The relevant text from the source (which appears to be Rathbun 2009, not 2013, based on the relevant footnote) is The pair bond is weak, with the animals spending relatively little time in coordinated activities, except when a female is in oestrus, which seems to contradict ALT5 ("relatively little time" isn't none except mating), and No direct paternal investment in neonates has been documented, which doesn't quite back up ALT4: just because it hasn't been documented doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just that scientists haven't seen any.
Launchballer, if you're going to approve hooks, it's your responsibility to first check the sources to make sure they concur with the article as to the hook facts. ALT4 might be made usable by adding "known" or "documented" before "paternal" but the article needs to be revised first to match the source; ALT5 probably can't be saved, though the article should still be corrected to match the source.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
23:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My mistake, I saw "Azcolvin429 will need to confirm that the wording matches the source" and assumed they were offline, because why else would Kevmin not be able to check himself. If it really is in Rathbun 2013, then the source should be switched.--Launchballer23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
With regard to Alt 4 (and a degree alt 5), we also dont have confirmation that there arent micropockets of cheddar in the earths core, but we arent going to veto a hook about the metallic nature of the core because we havent had a report about it? "just that scientists haven't seen any", presents as a highly anti-science statement, boiling down "what do experts know anyways, they CVOULD be wrong so we have to assume they are wrong."
Additionally I was pinged to provide alternatives, I did not write the article and I did not have to provide any input at all.--
Kevmin§01:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I plan on writing up the R. cirnei sub-section in the threats and conservation section which is why it is only one sentence currently. The trouble is that there are a lot os subspecies and much of the research is messy because of changes in species names. Notably, R. stuhlmanni now a species was once referred to by various names, most recently R. c. stuhlmanni. Any advice on section structure would he valuable!
Andrew Z. Colvin •
Talk06:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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
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 a new subspecies of giant sengi was discovered in 2021? Source: "Despite the pelage differences, initial DNA comparisons found it nearly identical to R. chrysopygus. A later DNA comparison supported a designation of a new subspecies, Rhynchocyon chrysopygus mandelai as it diverges in pelage and is allopatric to R. chrysopygus (Agwanda et al. 2021)."
ALT1 ... that a new subspecies of giant sengi was discovered in 2021 in Kenya? Source: "Despite the pelage differences, initial DNA comparisons found it nearly identical to R. chrysopygus. A later DNA comparison supported a designation of a new subspecies, Rhynchocyon chrysopygus mandelai as it diverges in pelage and is allopatric to R. chrysopygus (Agwanda et al. 2021)."
ALT2 ... that a new Golden-rumped sengi subspecies (Rhynchocyon) was discovered in in Kenya? Source: "Despite the pelage differences, initial DNA comparisons found it nearly identical to R. chrysopygus. A later DNA comparison supported a designation of a new subspecies, Rhynchocyon chrysopygus mandelai as it diverges in pelage and is allopatric to R. chrysopygus (Agwanda et al. 2021)."
ALT3 ... that a new subspecies of the giant Golden-rumped sengi was discovered in 2021? Source: "Despite the pelage differences, initial DNA comparisons found it nearly identical to R. chrysopygus. A later DNA comparison supported a designation of a new subspecies, Rhynchocyon chrysopygus mandelai as it diverges in pelage and is allopatric to R. chrysopygus (Agwanda et al. 2021)."
Date, size, expansion, hook, refs, QPQ, copyvio spotcheck, all GTG. Minor disclaimer: the prose script I use does not count tables and bulleted lists, and without them I see only ~2.5-3x expansion. But there is a new large table (with some advanced features) and a new list, so I am AGFing the 5x claim. PS. I added a single citation needed request to one sentence - I ask the nom to comment here on whether it has been addressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here10:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Reference added! And yes, it was not massively expanded, however I am working on more sections in the conservation section today. Thank you for the comments.
Andrew Z. Colvin •
Talk22:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Azcolvin429: Another issue with recently is that it's relative to the field but if that's unclear, it could give folks a misleading impression. 2008/7 is recent for the discovery of species, but not recent in other ways. Back in 2007, you could pull your Blackberry out of your ombré jeans and text your friends to meet you at Blockbuster Video so you all could rent a DVD to play on your PS2. Some people could read the hook as meaning that it was discovered earlier this year. I thought some of the reproduction information cited to
Rathbun was interesting, including that they're monogamous but spend little time together and the quick development of the offspring, "mall versions of adults and are able to run swiftly within an hour of birth". Good luck, whichever way you go,
Rjjiii (
talk)
06:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I know it is not super interesting, its just a little factoid and I expanded the article significantly so figured it would be useful. I initally avoided the year as it is not super recent, but it was not on Wikipedia until I wrote about it and updated corresponding phylogenies and distributions. I should clarify that the expanded article is just the genus. The new subspecies is Rhynchocyon chrysopygus mandelai and is mentioned in the article as well as given a section titled "Kenya subspecies". Maybe the hook should be more specific? Though I wanted to avoid being too technical. I added a few alts.
Andrew Z. Colvin •
Talk06:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
None of the currently proposed hooks (including the new ones) are very interesting. I would suggest moving away from the "newly-discovered" angle as it's clearly not working out. My suggestion would be to try hooks about the subject itself, like something else that's mentioned in the article.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions)
00:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Alt4 ... that giant sengis offspring get little maternal care and no paternal care? Rathbun 2013,
Azcolvin429 will need to confirm that the wording matches the source
Alt5 ... that giant sengis form monogamous couples that only come together to mate? Rathbun 2013,
Azcolvin429 will need to confirm that the wording matches the source
The relevant text from the source (which appears to be Rathbun 2009, not 2013, based on the relevant footnote) is The pair bond is weak, with the animals spending relatively little time in coordinated activities, except when a female is in oestrus, which seems to contradict ALT5 ("relatively little time" isn't none except mating), and No direct paternal investment in neonates has been documented, which doesn't quite back up ALT4: just because it hasn't been documented doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just that scientists haven't seen any.
Launchballer, if you're going to approve hooks, it's your responsibility to first check the sources to make sure they concur with the article as to the hook facts. ALT4 might be made usable by adding "known" or "documented" before "paternal" but the article needs to be revised first to match the source; ALT5 probably can't be saved, though the article should still be corrected to match the source.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
23:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My mistake, I saw "Azcolvin429 will need to confirm that the wording matches the source" and assumed they were offline, because why else would Kevmin not be able to check himself. If it really is in Rathbun 2013, then the source should be switched.--Launchballer23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
With regard to Alt 4 (and a degree alt 5), we also dont have confirmation that there arent micropockets of cheddar in the earths core, but we arent going to veto a hook about the metallic nature of the core because we havent had a report about it? "just that scientists haven't seen any", presents as a highly anti-science statement, boiling down "what do experts know anyways, they CVOULD be wrong so we have to assume they are wrong."
Additionally I was pinged to provide alternatives, I did not write the article and I did not have to provide any input at all.--
Kevmin§01:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I plan on writing up the R. cirnei sub-section in the threats and conservation section which is why it is only one sentence currently. The trouble is that there are a lot os subspecies and much of the research is messy because of changes in species names. Notably, R. stuhlmanni now a species was once referred to by various names, most recently R. c. stuhlmanni. Any advice on section structure would he valuable!
Andrew Z. Colvin •
Talk06:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply