Template:Did you know nominations/Acer taggarti

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 Vanamonde (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Acer taggarti

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the extinct maple Acer taggarti was first described from over ten fossils? Source: "Wolfe & Tanai 1987, Appendix Table : Occurrences and cited specimens of fossil Acer in North America page 244" (Wolfe & Tanai, 1987)

• Reviewed: Cornops aquaticum

Created by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 21:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC).

• Move date checks out, prose portion of article is obviously over 1500 characters, subject seems notable, no outstanding maintenance tags, the probability of copyright violation is unlikely at 6.5%. Article is neutral, QPQ has been met. Every paragraph has a citation, but the final sentence of the third paragraph needs a reference. Also, replace "issue=3" with "|issue=3" in the Huang reference. Hook is under 200 characters and neutral but is not actually included anywhere in the article – unless I'm missing something, nowhere in the article is the phrase "ten fossils" used. The hook needs to be taken directly from the article, and be sourced by an inline citation. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

As noted the list of specimens in the Appendix is the source for the number. I have used that data before with no problems for hooks. May I ask why you feel the last sentence needs an extra citation? The Huang citation has been fixed.--Kevmin § 19:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Per the DYK criteria, the hook "should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article" (emphasis not mine). The fact in this hook is not currently mentioned anywhere in the article. The "Of the paratypes six are leaves..." sentence needs a citation because all content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, especially if it's going to appear on the front page. Looking at that paragraph again, it would appear that it's entirely sourced to the Wolfe & Tanai source. Per WP:CITEFOOT, this is fine, but the citation needs to be at the end of the paragraph. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact is mentioned. The list of A.taggatri specimens that I have pointed you to in the appendix counts as mentioning. Thus there should be no problems with it now. DYK rules are that each paragraph have citations in it. No that every sentence have a citation. I will move the Wolfe & Tani citation.--Kevmin § 16:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Wolfe & Tanai's article, sure, but to qualify for DYK it needs to be mentioned in the Wikipedia article as well – nowhere here does it explicitly say that Acer taggarti was first described from over ten fossils. In fact, if I look at it again, the 25-page appendix in Wolfe & Tanai's article lists closer to 100 fossils rather than just "over ten". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

For A. taggarti? No, Wolf and Tanai only list twelve accession numbers not 100. See page 244. The section lists "Mascall / Meadow UCMP P4123 Leaf UCMP 9102" and "Mascall / White Hills UCMP 3735 Leaf UCMP 318A, B; 3185, 3186A, B; 3202, 9103, 9104 fruit UCMP 3178, 3187-3189, 9105, 9106" That is a total of 6 leaves from the white hills site and 6 fruits from the white hills site. That makes twelve fossils, thus the hook here is viable.--Kevmin § 19:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I think a second set of eyes may be needed on this.--Kevmin § 20:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you might be right. My concerns are that the current hook isn't very "hook"-y and, more crucially, that it's still not mentioned in the article. I welcome a second opinion on the matter. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

That is where we disagree I think, the hook is mentioned in the article. The last line is what the hook is based on "Of the paratypes six are leaves and six are fruits", that is over ten and is source-able to Wolfe & Tanai.--Kevmin § 16:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Kevmin that the twelve paratypes and the holotype are sufficient for the hook fact. The article is long enough, new enough, neutral and free from copyright issues as far as I can tell. This is good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Why obfuscate it to "over (sic) ten" when "twelve" would seem perfectly accurate and less vague? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Its not obfuscating though, and generates interest in readers wondering how many it was described from over the round number 10 that is given. Its less hooky with twelve.--Kevmin § 21:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Not at all, it's simple obfuscation designed to remove clarity and encyclopedic value. I will address it at ERRORS when it runs. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no error to report though, it is true to the article and does not falsely represent any part of the article. And you feel that threats will net you exactly what result?--Kevmin § 10:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

See you there. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, you have not actually noted anything that can be construed as an error, so why are you making a point of this continued treat to waste time?--Kevmin § 14:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• To me, a far more interesting hook would be one that mentioned that of the 13 specimens (not 12), 6 are fruits. You don't think of maples and fruits in the same breath; the fact that these fruits are the maple's seeds will probably not occur to the average reader. Thus, "first described from thirteen fossils, six of which were fruits?" (In this case, the holotype should probably be specifically described in the article as a leaf, so there isn't any counting confusion.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, that's good work, both in succinctness and hookiness. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  I've tweaked the article, and following the above comments propose:

• (ALT1a): ... that the extinct maple Acer taggarti was first described from thirteen fossils, six of which were fruits?
• (ALT1b): ... that the extinct maple Acer taggarti was first described from thirteen fossils, six of which were fruit paratypes?

  @Kevmin: What do you think of these? Also, please note that The Rambling Man may take any proposed change to main page content to WP:ERRORS to request a change, just as may any other editor... but it does not follow that a suggestion will result in a change. TRM does catch errors regularly, and also finds examples where polishing will strengthen a hook, so I suggest that everyone consider issues he raises while trying (as much as possible) to set aside his manner. EdChem (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  Im good with alt1, alt two feels like paratype is tacked on. I will not set aside his manner though, as its not needed at all in the project.--Kevmin § 00:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  And I will not ignore your attitude which is not needed at all in the DYK project nor the Wikipedia as a whole. It was refreshing to see so many individuals reminding you of process here. Hopefully we won't need to go over this again next time you create a hook of a similar nature. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Approving ALT1a as the better of the two new hooks. Striking the remaining hooks for clarity. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)