Template:Did you know nominations/Brontosaurus

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 Lightburst talk 22:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Brontosaurus

(

)

Skeleton of Brontosaurus at the Yale Peabody Museum

... that after over a hundred years of being considered invalid, Brontosaurus was found to be valid again in 2015? Source: https://peerj.com/articles/857/
- Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Augustios Paleo (talk). Self-nominated at 20:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Brontosaurus; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Review

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems: - A DYK hook should present a definite fact but this hook fact is disputed as the article states that "Nevertheless, not all paleontologists agree with this division." I'm not sure how such disputes are resolved but the hook should be qualified or otherwise amended to clarify the issue.
- The hook works because I mention specifically the 2015 study, not all research. If needed, it could be "that after over a hundred years of being considered invalid, Brontosaurus was found to be possibly valid again in 2015?", which would work.

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: So far as I can tell the nominator has only done one DYK and so no QPQ is required. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: The nominator on September 10 replied above to your comment without leaving a ping. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this has been stalled so long, but let me suggest what I think is a better hook:
- ALT1: ... that a Brontosaurus stamp led to the United States Postal Service being accused of "fostering scientific illiteracy"?
Even better would be
- ALT2: ... that the Brontosaurus was thin at one end, much much thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end?

if I could figure out a way to get it past the DYK curmudgeons (ping EEng for moral support). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)

@EEng: for RoySmith's comments above. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I had the Anne Elk idea in mind when I saw the ping, even before actually landing on this page. Imagine my pleasure on seeing that one of my fellow editors had anticipated me -- my heart swells with pride. Now if only we can think of a way to actually work it into the article. E Eng 03:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Much as I loathe In popular culture sections, especially in serious scientific articles, I was much relieved to find that this article already had one. After that, I couldn't resist. ALT2 for April 1, 2024, anyone? RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Nicely done. E Eng 16:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm the original DYK reviewer, returning as requested. My thoughts on the developments above are

The original hook idea still doesn't work because addition of the word "possibly" clearly shows that this is not a definite fact.
The ALT1 hook checks out and is quite interesting but needed some copy-editing, which I have done by expanding the USPS abbreviation and fixing a typo.
The ALT2 hook is problematic in that it just re-tells the punchline from the sketch and I reckon this is contrary to the spirit of WP:DYKFICTION. The article about the sketch has more interesting details such as the bit about the style guide but that's not the article we're dealing with here.

So, ALT0 is not approved. ALT1 is fine and ALT2 is debatable. We can make progress with ALT1 and so that gets a

.

One other point is that this article qualifies by dint of it passing a GA review. As some liberties are being taken with the topic, I'm pinging the nominator and GA reviewer for their input. @The Morrison Man and Augustios Paleo:

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I would say that ALT1 would be fine for use. I would advise against using ALT0, due to ongoing disagreements on the validity of the genus. Don't think anything else needs to be said about ALT2 The Morrison Man (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson, RoySmith, The Morrison Man, and Augustios Paleo: I wonder if we are OK with the unattributed quote in ALT1. I archived the NYT article and the line in the article is Furious purists point out that the brontosaurus is now properly called apatosaurus. They accuse the stamp's authors of fostering scientific illiteracy, and want the stamps recalled.. So to quote what might be a handful of people may be making it seem like there was more of a controversy. Lightburst (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

There's plenty more sources which seem to make it clear that the opposition was significant. For example, the NYT specifies the Smithsonian and the Paleontological Society, amongst others. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point. I did a bit more searching and found "Bully for Brontosaurus" which I see is already covered in our article. The Washington Post did a better job of covering the controversy and mentions that the stamp rollout was timed to coincide with the release of The Land Before Time, also mentioned by (cough, gag) Fox News. This is picked up again in"Revising Fiction, Fact, and Faith - Google Books". google.com. Retrieved 3 October 2023., which quotes Gould quoting the NY Times. So, this all seems to be repeating the same meme. RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

PS, the key document seems to be USPS Postal Bulletin 21744, which I can't find anywhere. However, the USPS says if you can't find what you're looking for, you should file a FOIA request, so I've gone ahead and done that. Just getting through the crappy web interface was an adventure in itself, but we'll see what happens. RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I gotta give credit to the USPS for speedy processing of my FOIA request. I got the document this afternnon. See Talk:Brontosaurus#Source of Postal Bulletin quote? for the full story. RoySmith (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thanks for getting that document - I saw the production "unexpected problems" comment. Do you think we are ok promoting the approved ALT1 hook? Lightburst (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say, "If it was good enough for the NY Times, it's good enough for us", but since it's my hook, I really shouldn't be the person passing judgement on it. Best to get an uninvolved opinion. RoySmith (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: thanks... It appears that @The Morrison Man: has already approved it above. Then @Andrew Davidson: also weighed in. I will promote. Lightburst (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)